Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Drug Dispensing

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage increase in the cost of drugs dispensed under the National Health Service in each of the past four years.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The percentage increases over the previous financial year in the expenditure on drugs in England, excluding hospital services were: 1977–78, 28·3 per cent., 1978–79, 20 per cent., 1979–80, 14·1 per cent. and 1980–81, 20·6 per cent.

Mr. Knox: Those increases are fairly substantial. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to bring the bill for drugs under control?

Mr. Fowler: A number of steps have been taken. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme seeks to ensure that prices are reasonable. In addition, the Department is encouraging effective prescribing through its regional medical officers. An informal group has been set up with the professions to identify ways of encouraging effective prescribing. Therefore, work is in hand.

Mr. Hardy: As inflation in the price of drugs—although substantial—is less than the inflation in prescription charges, and as, in the last three months of 1980, 2¼ million prescriptions were dispensed at a cost below the prescription charge, is it not reasonable to believe that in the next 12 months more than 10 million prescriptions will be dispensed by the National Health Service at a profit? Is that not disgraceful, and should it not be avoided?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, even now, prescription charges cover, on average, less than half the cost of the drugs. In addition, more than 60 per cent. of the population are exempt from prescription charges.

Health Education Council

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to make any additional appointments to the Health Education Council.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am satisfied that the council is already well constituted to carry out its important work of promoting good health.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that in an answer earlier this year I was told that the constitution of the council had to reflect the many professional interests? If so, why does it not include general practitioners and hospital doctors? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such people are in closest touch with patients and have a vital role to play in health education? Will the Minister re-examine this matter?

Mr. Finsberg: I should be delighted to have another look at that. However, if the hon. Gentleman considers the council's membership he will realise that it covers a wide spread of people, including community physicians. I should have thought that they would give the necessary balance, but I shall keep an open mind and examine the matter.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Given that the health council for England and Wales is situated in London, will the Minister consider giving Wales its own health council, as Scotland has, instead of the advisory body that we have to tolerate now?

Mr. Finsberg: That is an interesting point, which I shall be delighted to look into.

Perinatal Mortality (South-West Thames)

Mr. Pitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the yearly perinatal mortality rate for the South-West Thames regional health authority from 1975 to 1981.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): The perinatal mortality rates per thousand total births were as follows: 1975, 18·0; 1976, 14·8; 1977, 14·6; 1978, 13·5; 1979, 13·3; and in 1980, 10·8.
The figure for 1981 is, of course, not yet available.

Mr. Pitt: Given those figures and the recent report that there are only four intensive care cots for the South-West Thames regional health authority—which covers South-West London, and the whole of Surrey and West Sussex—and given a further report that my borough of Croydon has, with Newcastle and Tower Hamlets, one of the highest perinatal death rates in the country, will the Minister give an assurance that provision for the creation of the three centres recommended in the report will soon be under way and that sufficient funds will be provided?

Dr. Vaughan: Provision for the centres is going ahead. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the figures, which show a considerable improvement in that part of London. The Croydon figures must be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman. He will see from them one of the greatest improvements ever and that the figure is well below the national average.

Unemployment and Health

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the result of the study being undertaken at Queen Mary college into the relationship between unemployment and health in families.

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, from the evidence available to him, there appears to be an association in time between the


events of unemployment and a subjective deterioration in health which leads people to ask for help from their general practitioners.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answers by the Minister for Health in columns 154 to 156 of the Official Report,20 October, if he will now publish the subsequent correspondence of the Minister for Health with Dr. Leonard Fagin.

Dr. Vaughan: A copy of my correspondence with Dr. Fagin has already been placed in the Library, as I said it would be. First results of the Queen Mary college study into possible links between unemployment and mortality rates were published in The Lancet on 26 September. Further results will follow in 1982. On the evidence at present available it is not possible to come to definite general conclusions on the effect of unemployment on health.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware that, almost without exception, and in whatever part of the country research is carried out, unemployment and poverty are, in general, closely associated with family health—both mental and physical? Will he comment on the recent perinatal mortality figures for 1980? What Christmas message of hope has he for the 3 million unemployed sufferers and their families?

Dr. Vaughan: The House is interested in any links between unemployment and health and ill health. Some families develop better health as they take on additional responsibilities. Of course we are concerned about ill health. A good deal of research is taking place and we must await the results.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I have listened with interest to the Minister's remarks. Does he agree that Dr. Fagin, who carried out the study, believes that there is a correlation between unemployment and ill health?

Dr. Vaughan: As the House will know, Dr. Fagin has corresponded with me on that matter. In his letter to me he said that my quotations were accurate: but that they did not cover as much as he would have wished. He said
Our interviews with the families revealed close associations in time between changes in health and the experience of unemployment. Health did not necessarily worsen after unemployment. Some families actually reported less health problems.
He went on to say that there was a general relationship between unemployment and ill health and that some families suffered worse health following unemployment.

Mr. Paul Dean: Is my hon. Friend saying that the problems are deep-seated and human, and for which there are no immediate political solutions?

Dr. Vaughan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Yes, that is the position.

Mr. Ennals: Is the Minister aware that Dr. Fagin has twice said that the hon. Gentleman has mis-guided the House? Is he further aware of other evidence that shows an increase in suicide, family breakdown and non-accidental injury among the unemployed, and that the longer the period of unemployment, the, greater the likelihood of those eventualities occurring?

Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept that I have mis-guided the House. Dr. Fagin said in his letter to me:
I am not saying that you were not accurate in what you said.

I suggest that hon. Members wait until we receive the report of the Queen Mary college study, and then we shall know the position.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not true that Dr. Fagin has twice written to the Minister saying that, at best, his representation of the study on the link between unemployment and ill health was unbalanced and, at worst, done to mis-guide the House? Does the Minister accept that there is not only a proven link between ill health and unemployment, but that it is clear that the cost not only to the unemployed but to their families is high and will continue to rise under this heartless Government?

Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept the hon. Lady's remarks. I accept that unemployment can be a tragedy for certain individuals and their families, and also that it can be a blight on the community. No doubt the hon. Lady failed to read The Guardian recently, which pointed out that health spending had risen under the Conservatives faster than at any time since the creation of the NHS in 1948.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of persons in receipt of retirement pensions, both single and married couples.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): At November 1980there were 8,970,000 retirement pensions in payment. This includes 240,000 payable to pensioners living overseas and 52,000 pensioners receiving non-contributory retirement pensions, but excludes payments that consist only of graduated pension. There are estimated to be about 2½ million married couples receiving retirement pension.

Mr. Skinner: Why do those nigh on 10 million pensioners have to wait until the following November to be paid the shortfall? Under this Government that shortfall will represent one week's pension lost by November 1982. Why does not the Minister take on board the novel idea put to me at a recent meeting of pensioners, that rather than the pensions being paid out by that rickety old computer that takes a year to work they should be put on the new, whizz-bang electronic device that stops contributions almost immediately and manages to pay out to Members of Parliament within three weeks? If the pensions were put on that computer the additional one week's pension could be paid in the new year.

Mrs. Chalker: For the sake of the record, I want hon. Members to understand that almost 9 million pensions are in payment, not 10 million. As the hon. Gentleman knows, with current technology it has not been possible to pay benefits or uprate them more than annually. I look towards the future when the changes in technology will make a number of information and payment possibilities a reality. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in encouraging the unions involved to accept the new technology that will bring payments and information to the public in a much better fashion than can be done at present.

Mr. Paul Dean: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were to encourage some of his friends in the trade unions to stop grabbing more than their fair share it would be that much


easier for the Government to ensure that pensioners and other vulnerable groups were properly protected, especially at Christmas?

Mrs. Chalker: Of course my hon. Friend is right. Only a certain amount of resources is available. We must ensure that we secure sufficient resources to pay pensioners. We have pledged ourselves to increase pensions and make good the shortfall, and that we shall definitely do. There is no doubt that the more money that is taken out of the economy, not linked to increases in productivity, the harder is made the task of paying adequate or more than adequate pensions to the growing number of pensioners for many years to come.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that, on the figure she has given of the number of pensioners, I have worked out—without the aid of technology—that by failing to uprate the pension by the current level of inflation of 12 per cent., and increasing it by only 9 per cent., the Government are cheating pensioners out of more than £400 million in the coming year? Is that not disgraceful? Will she rethink, and persuade the Government to rethink, that position?

Mrs. Chalker: I have already said that, with current technology, it is not possible to make good the shortfall before November 1982, which the Government are pledged to do. I must put the record straight. During the past two years the increase, based on the 15·5 per cent. rate of inflation to November 1980, is a further 10 per cent. at November 1981, and the 2 per cent. shortfall will be made up in toto. In addition, we are not changing from the historic to the forward estimating system, and therefore are not saving the £500 million, as the Labour Government did, and which is now worth £932 million. We are also paying the Christmas bonus, which the Labour Government did not do for two successive years.

Mr. Rooker: As the Minister has come to the House armed with a load of statistics, will she tell us how many of the 9 million pensioners are not receiving supplementary benefit because of the harshness of the new supplementary benefit rules? Will she also say how many of them are now paying income tax compared with the number paying income tax during the two and a half years since the Government took office?

Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Member knows, I am only too willing to provide him with statistics when I have had adequate notice. I cannot provide the statistics that he requests on this occasion. The Government hope and pray that every pensioner who is entitled to supplementary benefit will make the claim for supplementary pension. I hope sincerely that hon. Members will do all that they can to encourage the take-up of supplementary pensions.

Hospitals (Maintenance and Cleaning)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has given any guidance to health authorities on the privatisation of the maintenance and cleaning of hospitals.

Mr. Fowler: Arrangements for the maintenance and cleaning of hospitals are for individual health authorities to determine according to their local needs and circumstances. I would expect them to look at the possibility of commercial contracts in seeking to provide

efficient and economic services, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health wrote to all authority chairmen in August urging them to take this commonsense step.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the matter is left to area health authorities to deal with as they think fit. Where privatisation takes place, will the Government monitor some of the schemes to ensure that they are economic?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give a guarantee that we shall monitor them. As responsibility lies with the regional health authorities, it is important for them to be satisfied that they are getting good value for money, since it is that that they and the Government want.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if ancillary services in the National Health Service were carried out by the private sector to the same extent in Britain as in some other countries there would be a saving of the best part of £50 million per annum, which could be used to provide vital medical equipment? is he further aware that some bureaucrats in the NHS are resisting the sensible guidance of his Department to justify their little empires under reorganisation?

Mr. Fowler: I very much hope that my hon. Friend's last suggestion is not the case. The entire interest of the NHS should be to try to find the maximum efficiency within the service. That is the sensible way of proceeding.

Mr. David Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only 2·54 per cent. of Britain's total hospital expenditure on cleaning goes out to the private sector, compared with 50 per cent. in Belgium and France, 60 per cent. in Germany and Denmark and 70 per cent. in Sweden and New Zealand? When will he take measures to ensure that health authorities are obliged to put cleaning out to private tender?

Mr. Fowler: The best way of proceeding is that set out by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. As my hon. Friend has already said, he has urged authorities to consider a commonsense step forward. I am informed that about 10 area health authorities report that some of the hospitals in their areas have special cleaning facilities. I should welcome an increase in that number, but it must be borne in mind that we are seeking the maximum efficiency. If that can be provided, the step that is being urged by my hon. Friend makes a great deal of sense

Health Regions (Capital Spending)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what decisions have been taken on the forward capital spending programmes of the health regions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: Capital allocations for 1982–83 calculated in accordance with the recommendations of the Resource Allocation Working Party will be issued early in the new year. Planning assumptions for later years will be issued to regions when the White Paper reflecting the Government's expenditure plans for these years has been published.

Mr. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that concern is widely felt throughout the West Midlands that the regional health authority has withheld tenders, so that all capital projects are now subject to serious delay? Does he


recognise that there is confusion and anger in my constituency that among the projects so delayed is the new district general hospital—the site works for which have already been completed—which means that there is likely to be a serious waste of money apart from delay in the programme?

Mr. Fowler: I know very well my hon. Friend's concern. The West Midlands region, which determines capital programmes and all schemes, has decided to delay projects pending a thorough review of the regional programme. That review includes the Bromsgrove and Redditch district general hospital scheme. I cannot tell my hon. Friend when the review will be completed, but I shall make further investigations on his behalf.

Mr. Dormand: How much importance does the right hon. Gentleman place on the Black report, which, among other things, deals with capital spending programmes? Does he recall that 10 priority areas are recommended in the report, no fewer than four of which are in the Northern region? The House does not expect the Government to implement all of the many recommendations in the report, but why are they not doing something about capital spending programmes and the other recommendations that are made for the 10 special regions?

Mr. Fowler: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. However, the Government have increased spending on the National Health Service by 5 per cent. in real terms. Secondly, planned capital expenditure on the hospital programmes in 1981–82 is 13 per cent. higher than spending in 1978–79. Spending is increasing.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as a result of successive Governments' public expenditure cuts and the way in which they have been arranged capital spending is running at a low level within the NHS? Is this not a recipe for future public squalor?

Mr. Fowler: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, who has left the Labour Party, that the greatest cuts in capital spending took place under the Labour Government. I have no doubt that he voted for those cuts.

Mr. Major: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the equity of the RAWP formula and that the 1982–83 capital allocations will be similar to the planning assumptions previously made?

Mr. Fowler: The level of capital expenditure in 1982–83 will be maintained in real terms. We are considering resource allocations and we shall have something to say about them a little later.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he remains satisfied with the rate at which hospital waiting lists are being reduced.

Mr. Whitlock: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much hospital waiting lists have fallen since 1979.

Mr. Fowler: Waiting list numbers in England have fallen from a peak of over 750,000 on 31 March 1979 to a provisional figure of 630,000 on 31 March 1981. This is an achievement for which the National Health Service deserves full credit, though there is room for further improvement and we shall continue to encourage this.

Mr. Heddle: May I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for a significant reduction in hospital waiting lists during the past two years? This is one of the Government's many unsung successes. Notwithstanding that, does my right hon. Friend agree that treatment for a significant proportion of those still awaiting operations, especially the 124,000 awaiting orthopaedic operations, would be greatly facilitated by the implementation of the recommendation of the Duthie report and by my right hon. Friend taking on board my suggestion to establish a computer bed bank, either at national or regional level, so that vacancies on surgeons' waiting lists can be matched to orthopaedic cases awaiting surgery?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. There is no question but that the Government have spent 5 per cent. more in real terms on the National Health Service. There are now 21,000 more nurses and 1,000 more doctors. Those are achievements of which the Government have every right to be proud. I read the suggestion that my hon. Friend made in an article and I shall have that issue re-examined.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman look with urgency at the blight that has settled on us, especially on London teaching hospitals, and give particular attention to the number of consultant professorships that are vacant because of the uncertainty that has been caused by the Flowers report and the reorganisation that will take place on 1 April? Will he direct his attention to the effect that this is having on increasing waiting lists, especially in out-patient departments? Will he do something about the way in which private practice is able to lengthen gynaecological waiting lists in the NHS by treating ladies who are uncomfortable and are prepared to pay to get out of their discomfort?

Mr. Fowler: I shall examine both the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will always keep in mind the need to have sufficient hospital accommodation for the elderly and temporarily infirm, many of whom need to go into hospitals for short periods at this time" of the year?

Mr. Fowler: Indeed. My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the problems that the National Health Service faces, not just at this time but throughout the year.

Mr. Ashley: When the Minister speaks of being proud of his achievements, does he recognise that in North Staffordshire many thousands of people wait for many years for important treatment, and that in other parts of the country the list is shorter? If it is not possible in the short term to take doctors to those areas of difficulty, can he make arrangements to take people to the doctors where the waiting lists are shorter?

Mr. Fowler: I should not want in any way to suggest that we must not still go much further. The point that I was making was the record of this Government so far.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's second point. Indeed, I have said that I shall examine that matter to see whether improvements can be made.

New Cross Hospital (Dental Therapists School)

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will visit the school for dental therapists at New Cross hospital before reaching any decision on its proposed closure.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, Sir. I propose to visit the school during the Christmas Recess and a decision on its future will therefore be postponed until the visit has taken place.

Dr. Thomas: I am very glad to hear the news of the visit. Among the escalating costs of the National Health Service, the dentists' costs remain pretty constant. Would not the development of dental health therapy, rather than its imminent demise, be far more worth while to the National Health Service, unless privatisation is what the Minister has in mind?

Mr. Finsberg: If I commented on that question I should be prejudging the decision that we are postponing until after the recess.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that the recommendation to close the school was made by a committee of independent members of the dental profession and was entirely outside his Department?

Mr. Finsberg: I confirm that the committee was as independent body.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Minister bear in mind, in reaching a decision on this matter, that the consequences for the care of children's teeth could be very serious, and that if he implements the recommendation of the latest committee, which was chaired by a civil servant of the Department—hardly independent—he will be going against the views expressed by the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, the Court committee and the Nuffield committee? Does he particularly remember that on 16 November I asked for a meeting on the subject before a decision was reached? If that does not happen, there will be big trouble.

Mr. Finsberg: I very much resent what the hon. Gentleman said about the calibre of a civil servant in my Department in suggesting that because he chairs a committee he cannot be independent.

Waiting Lists (Deaths)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of patients who are known to have died during the last year from ailments or diseases for which they were awaiting operations or other forms of treatment which are normally successful in achieving a cure.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Figures are not collected for patients who die while on waiting lists; but a patient whose condition became sufficiently serious would normally be reassessed and admitted urgently.

Mr. Newens: Does the Minister accept that thousands of people die each year while awaiting operations for kidney failure, bone marrow transplants and other operations that would save them from death? That is allowed to happen to save a few paltry million pounds, while we spend thousands of millions of pounds on Trident

and other nuclear weapons. Does he not accept that that is an outrage and that most people in the country think it an outrage? When will the Government say "This is a state of affairs that we are not prepared to tolerate and we shall spend the money to see that it no longer happens"?

Mr. Finsberg: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give us credit for the fact that we are maintaining in real terms the commitment to spend money on the National Health Service made by the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman on occasions supported.

Mr. Ennals: How does the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that although between 1976 and 1978 the waiting list was below 600,000, over the past two years—1980 and 1981—there have been 650,000 people on the list? The Minister must surely agree that the waiting lists are substantially higher than they were during the period of the Labour Government.

Mr. Finsberg: The right hon. Gentleman occasionally indulges in selective quotations. The full facts were given by my right hon. Friend. There has been a substantial reduction since the Government came to office.

International Year of Disabled People

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what he regards as the most important achievements of the International Year of Disabled People so far as the United Kingdom is concerned; and whether he has any proposals for maintaining the initiatives of the year.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): This most successful year has seen many achievements, but probably the most import ant are the improvements in attitudes and in awareness. I should like to express my gratitude and admiration to all those who have worked so hard to make the year a success. The Government hope to issue a special report in the new year setting out their proposals for maintaining the momentum generated by the year.

Mr. Ashley: When the Minister speaks of the success of the year, will he recognise that many disabled people feel great resentment at the cuts in the invalidity benefit during the year, in the social services, in the number of disablement resettlement officers and in the quota system, which protects the employment of disabled people? Is he aware that the real achievement of the year is that disabled people have now decided to act for themselves and to fight for themselves? They have formed the British Council of Organisations of the Disabled. Will he support the council by offering it funds, and will he meet it in the new year?

Mr. Rossi: I regard it as one of the great achievements of the year that the disabled have achieved a greater confidence in themselves and are coming forward, organising and asserting themselves. I welcome that. If any new organisation makes an application, it will be dealt with in in the ordinary way. I must join issue with the right hon. Gentleman, in that I do not accept that the disabled generally are financially worse off this year. It is estimated that between 1980–81 and 1981–82 expenditure on benefits for the disabled will have risen by 16 per cent. We are now paying out almost £3,000 million in cash benefits for the disabled.
I am not satisfied that we cannot do more, but in the present economic circumstances that is a very creditable


performance. When I attended the Council of Ministers recently in connection with the problems of the disabled, the United Kingdom was congratulated on all that we had done for the disabled this year.

Sir Albert Costain: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that his visit to a school for the disabled in my constituency gave a great deal of pleasure and created a great deal of confidence? Will he please visit it again, before the next International Year of Disabled People?

Mr. Rossi: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I well remember the visit, which was one of many visits that I have undertaken this year in connection with the year—from releasing pigeons on behalf of the Blackpool blind on the Normandy beaches on D-day, to attending my hon. Friend's constituency and the constituencies of many others of my hon. Friends in connection with the year.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister now answer the very important question put to him recently by the Wandsworth borough council and explain why he told the council that it had a legal duty to provide a telephone for one disabled person on its waiting list and not for the other 129? Will the Minister be satisfied, in this International Year of Disabled People, if other councils, such as Liverpool, provide a telephone only for people whose names he knows?
In view of all that the Minister has said this afternoon, will he give a straight pledge that he will reverse the cut in invalidity benefit for 650,000 chronically sick and disabled people and their families?

Mr. Rossi: On the last point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he will restore the abatement of invalidity benefit as soon as it comes into taxation.
With regard to Wandsworth, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be as glad as I am to know that we have been instrumental in securing telephones more quickly for those people. I emphasise, however, that this case does not reflect any change in interpretation or policy regarding the application of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Ministers have always made it clear that their understanding of the section is that it requires local authorities to assess the needs of disabled people and, if they are satisfied that a particular service is needed, to ensure that it is provided. Moreover, Wandsworth has an excellent record in these matters.

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that social security expenditure by the Government on the disabled has increased by some 8 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79? Is not that an example of effective Conservative compassion?

Mr. Rossi: I am happy to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. There has been an increase in expenditure in real terms in this area.

Voluntary Organisations (Funding)

Mr. Paul Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the levels of funding by his Department to assist voluntary organisations in contributing to the health and personal social services.

Mrs. Chalker: The Department gives grants direct to more than 200 voluntary organisations. Representations

often concern the details of funding but frequently give new ideas for schemes for volunteers and aid the development of new initiatives in the voluntary sector.

Mr. Dean: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many cases the money made available to voluntary organisations has substantially increased under the Conservative Government, but that unfortunately some local authorities have felt it necessary to reduce their grants? In view of the importance that the Government attach to voluntary effort, will they seek ways to make up the shortfall?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is quite right. The level of funding by the Department has increased. This year we shall spend £8·5 million in grants to the voluntary sector. Like my hon. Friend, we are very unhappy when local authorities reduce grants to good voluntary organisations. I hope that any local authority considering that course of action will reject it. I hope that authorities will look particularly at the working document entitled "Working Together" published by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. That document shows how effectively voluntary organisations working with local authorities can give a better and more humane service. They can also extend their services and give a better quality of life to all those whom the voluntary organisations so ably serve.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the hon. Lady aware that, due to the doubling of VAT, the Spastics Society, which had a very heavy deficit last year, will pay £300,000 in VAT this year? Can she give any help to the Spastics Society, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, Mencap and the many other organisations that find themselves under severe financial strain? What representations are DHSS Ministers making to the Treasury?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Of course we are concerned about this matter. I assure him that many representations have been made about VAT paid by voluntary organisations. We hope shortly to be in a position to give some information on that.

Mr. Hal Miller: May I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in support of the document "Working Together"? May I draw her attention to the fact that, for instance, voluntarily run hostels, to help mentally handicapped children to return to society operate more efficiently and effectively, as well as more humanely, than local authority homes?

Mrs. Chalker: It is difficult to draw complete conclusions, but I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. The important aspect in providing hostel accommodation and arranging for fostering is that we should harness all possible resources and ensure that where local authorities face particular challenges due to the numbers in their areas, and so on, they look to the tremendous value that voluntary bodies and volunteers offer in helping these people to attain a better quality of life.

Mr. Joseph Dean: It is interesting to note that the Minister seeks to lay some of the blame on local authorities for cutting grants to voluntary organisations. Is it not a fact that the grants had to be cut because of the severe cuts in rate support grant inflicted by the Government?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is for local authorities to decide their spending


priorities. He will note that many authorities throughout the country have benefited far more on a pound-for-pound basis by continuing their grants to voluntary organisations and cutting back on local authority bureaucracy. In that way, far better value for money is given to ratepayers.

St. Francis' Hospital, Haywards Heath

Mr. Renton: asked Secretary of State for Social Services if he will visit St. Francis' hospital, Haywards Heath.

Dr. Vaughan: I plan to visit Chailey Heritage and Croft school and will be glad to extend the visit to include St. Francis' hospital if my hon. Friend would like me to.

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance. May I suggest that he also finds time on that occasion to visit the neighbouring site of the new district general hospital, where work is to begin on the foundations in March? He will be most welcome. Does he recall that patients and resources are now being transferred from St. Francis' hospital to Brighton so that St. Francis' may develop more as a community hospital serving its own district? Is he satisfied with progress so far in that direction?

Dr. Vaughan: I should be glad to extend my visit as my hon. Friend suggests. Plans for developing resources at Brighton are going ahead. If my hon. Friend wishes me to look into the matter further, I shall be glad to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Trades Union Congress

Mr. Cryer: asked the Prime Minister when last she met the leaders of the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I met the TUC general secretary with representatives of the European Trades Union Confederation on 25 November.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Prime Minister accept that the TUC will regard her support for Polish trade unionists fighting for democratic rights as wholly hypocritical when, in this country, she is using the imprisonment of the dole queue and the intervention of the courts to suppress organised workers? Are not the same double standards demonstrated when she asks trade unionists to accept low wages while at the same time appointing to the head of a Civil Service department Mr. Montague Alfred, at a wage of £50,000 per year? Does not that show that she does not give a damn about workers in the United Kingdom, Poland or anywhere else?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must be hard put for a question if he finds any parallel whatever between conditions in this country and in Poland. Reports reach us of shootings, detention and great oppression in Poland. We vigorously denounce what is happening there and condemn it with all the strength and power that we can. There is no parallel whatever with anything that is happening in this country.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: When my right hon. Friend next meets the leaders of the TUC, will she discuss with them the possibility of a strike at Ford's? Will she emphasise to those involved that the short-term result can

only mean far more Ford cars being imported from Europe and that the long-term results must be a rundown in, the manufacture of Ford cars in this country?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with what my hon. Friend has said. One very much hopes that the strike at Ford's will not take place. At present, there are many good jobs there. One hopes that they will be kept and that Ford will continue to prosper in this country, but it can do so only by increasing its productivity.

Mr. Foot: We shall of course fight the right hon. Lady's trade union legislation when she introduces it, but in view of the black shadow that Poland casts across the whole of this Christmas and the feelings that I believe are shared throughout the country on this, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady has any recent information on the subject? What is the position of Lech Walesa? What is the Government's information about the manner in which he is being held?
What is the Government's latest information on the scale of the attacks made on workers and people exercising their right to strike and protest in Poland? Can the right hon. Lady also tell us what breaches of the Helsinki agreement are involved in what is happening and what steps the Government can take to assist refugees who may come here, and in every other way to express the protest of the people of this country alt what is happening in Poland and the brutal suppression that is taking place?

The Prime Minister: As I said in an earlier reply, we are all very deeply concerned at what is happening in Poland and we totally condemn the oppression by the present regime. With regard to refugees, a number of people from Poland are visiting this country and, of course, they will stay here for the time being. With regard to reports of shooting and oppression, we cannot confirm individual cases, but, in general, that is our information too. Of course, it seems that almost every undertaking of the Helsinki agreement is being flouted.
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention food, but I know that he would expect me to say a word or two about that. He will understand the difficulties involved, but we are all anxious to do everything that we possibly can to help the Polish people, without allowing food to fall into the hands of the military authorities. We have been in touch with the Red Cross authorities in Geneva. Most of our food has already gone to Poland. There is only a little left, mostly barley and a few tons of beef, but we shall make strenuous efforts to ensure that any future deliveries of food get to the people of Poland.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for what she has said about the supply of food. I asked her earlier about the Government's latest information on Lech Walesa and how he is being held.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I did not reply to that question. I should have done so. We have no precise information over and above what has already been reported. It is not possible to get precise information. Lech Walesa is being detained, but beyond that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any direct information.
We all bitterly and deeply regret that action is being taken to extinguish the flame of freedom that had started in Poland——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why?

The Prime Minister: If the authorities believe that they can snuff out that flame they are making an error of historic proportions.

Mr. Eggar: When my right hon. Friend next meets trade union leaders will she point out to them that the only way that we can achieve the increases in capital expenditure that we all earnestly desire is if current expenditure is kept under control? Will she make it clear to those leaders that she will not permit public sector employees to take wage increases that imperil capital investment programmes?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that we need to curb current expenditure if we are to get more capital expenditure, which most of us want. Many people would like more capital expenditure, but we often find that they nevertheless take out in wage increases the money that we need for that expenditure. That stops other people from getting more jobs.

Engagements

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 December.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister take time today to explain to parents why, as was confirmed by a Minister in the early hours of this morning, the Government are running down British universities and thereby depriving 20,000 young men and women a year of the opportunity of a better life? Will she also explain what that action will contribute to the process of international competitiveness, which she holds so dear to her heart, or so she tells us?

The Prime Minister: The grant to the University Grants Committee is about £900 million. The UGC is responsible for allocating that money. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a massive expansion of university places during my time as Secretary of State for Education and Science and a massive expansion of the number of people in teaching. There has been a massive expansion of university places over previous years, though it is true that there are now certain economies in university expenditure.
Competitiveness does not necessarily depend on the number of people at universities. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been an increase in the allocation of money for engineering and scientific places.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that in her new year message, published yesterday, her assertion that 1982 has all the signs of being a year of great opportunity for Britain——

Mr. Skinner: Not for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Steel: It is more likely for us than for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: The SDP is gobbling up the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that her assertion would have been more convincing if she had remembered that she said in her new year message for 1981: that
there is real hope that a year from now things will be looking distinctly brighter.

The Prime Minister: May I just give the right hon. Gentleman one or two figures to show that things really are very much better in some respects than at this time last year? For example, with regard to output per hour per person, which is an important measure of productivity, the figure for the third quarter of this year, on an indexed basis, is 115, which is an all-time record. The figure for output per person employed, another measure of productivity is 113·2, another all-time record. That is very good news.

Mr. Shore: What about unemployment and industrial output?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) does not like increased productivity. Of course he does not. I do not intend to answer questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position. The only way to get more business is for us to have greater productivity. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. Many people in industry are saying that they are in a better environment than for many years and they are well poised to take advantage of an increase in world trade when it comes.

Mr. David Atkinson: Returning to the subject of Poland, did my right hon. Friend hear the "World at One" programme, which referred to the Austrian request for this country to receive a fair share of the refugees, including handicapped people, recently arrived in Austria? Can my right hon. Friend make a statement on that request?

The Prime Minister: No. I have no statement to make on that. As I said in an earlier reply, a number of Polish people who were on a visit to this country are staying here for the time being until we see how the situation in Poland develops.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Prime Minister reflect, between her engagements today, on the shocking increase in unemployment among employable disabled people? Is she aware that it is now reported to be as high as 80 per cent. in some parts of the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Lady also reflect on the hardship caused for 650,000 chronically sick and disabled people and their families by the Government's cut in invalidity benefit during this International Year of Disabled People? Bearing in mind the resolution approved by the House on 3 July, what action is the Prime Minister taking to reverse that and other cuts in the living standards of disabled people?

The Prime Minister: I believe that I am right in saying that the invalidity pension had added to it a temporary allowance that brought it back up to what it would otherwise have been——

Mr. Alfred Morris: No, that is not so.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry if that is not specifically correct. I had the figures with me last week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a specific question, or perhaps he should have asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he was answering


questions earlier. There is an extra amount which, I thought, brought up the invalidity pension to the level that it would otherwise have been.
I am afraid that at a time of considerable unemployment, although the general overall figures are slightly down, it is very difficult to get extra places for disabled people, but those who are in work are doing a splendid job.
Later—

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many people inside and outside the House may have been seriously misled by the Prime Minister's reply to me——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot deal with a Minister's reply—that of the Prime Minister or of any other Minister—on a point of order.

Mr. Alan Clark: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clark: In considering what action to take about Poland, will my right hon. Friend ensure that nothing is done to add to the tribulations of the Polish people, who are more deserving of sympathy than punishment? Further, will she devote her personal prestige to bringing about a response from the free nations of Europe that is positive, resolute and, in contrast to what happened over Afghanistan, united?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the problems that we have in deciding what to do about withholding supplies from the Polish people. We wish to ease the lot of the Polish people. We must ensure that any food that is sent reaches them. Decisions will have to be made about the grant that we were giving the Ursus tractor factory. Another £30 million was due to go next year, and in concert with our allies in Europe we shall have to decide whether to send that amount. We shall also have to decide with our allies about the possibility of rescheduling debts. At the moment we are having consultations. There is a fresh round of consultation with our European colleagues and NATO Allies, and NATO ambassadors are meeting tomorrow.

Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that not everyone supports her denunciation of what is happening in Poland?

Mr. Canavan: Look at the time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I inform the House that we were one minute late in reaching Prime Minister's questions.

Dr. Owen: The real anxiety in the country is over what action is to be taken. It appears that again, as in the case of Afghanistan, the West is not prepared to cross the real threshold, which is a readiness to threaten economic sanctions. Are we really to believe that over the next few weeks we shall continue to fund the military Government in Poland, while we see what: is happening in that country? [Interruption.] Are we to continue to have free and open trading with Poland while—(Interruption]—we see what is happening on the television news?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is beyond reason for hon. Members to shout alongside a right hon. Member who is trying to address the House. All right hon. and hon. Members are entitled to be heard when they are called.

Dr. Owen: The country hears Labour Members every day.

Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Gentleman should tell us about his support for the Shah.

Dr. Owen: The Prime Minister should recognise that there is a real feeling in the country that denunciation is not enough and that we should be prepared, along with other European countries, to pay a fair price.

The Prime Minister: I think that I have already fairly answered a number of the right hon. Gentleman's questions. We shall of course need to be certain that any aid will not strengthen the forces of oppression. Many of us feel that it would not necessarily help the Polish people to cut off all food supplies this side of Christmas. It would be better to ensure that the supplies reach the people themselves. As I said, we are consulting our allies about, whether the debt should be rescheduled and what should happen about the grant that we had previously intended to give to the Ursus tractor factory. We are well aware of these matters, but they are not nearly as easy to deal with as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1981.
2. Nuclear Industry (Finance) Act 1981.
3. Housing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1981.
4. Midlothian District Council Order Confirmation Act 1981.
5. Derbyshire Act 1981.
6. British Railways (No. 2) Act 1981.

Deceased Members (Memorial Plaques)

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make to the House.
During the dissolution period in April 1979, I authorised on my own responsibility the erection in our Chamber of a commemorative plaque to the memory of the late Airey Neave displaying his coat of arms. As the House knows, this is positioned over the door leading to the Members' Lobby.
It has recently been suggested to me that a similar plaque might be erected in memory of the late. Rev. Robert Bradford. In my view, this is now a matter for the House, since I do not think that it would be right for me in the present circumstances to exercise responsibilities which were appropriate only when the House was in dissolution and the Speaker was the sole embodiment of its administrative authority.
Later—

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you, like other people, can be cross-questioned on statements. May I ask you whether you have it in mind that all the hon. Members who in the 700 years of the existence of this House have died on active service for their country should be commemorated here?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question is not quite in harmony with Christmas week. I made a statement which I thought was in harmony with the feeling of the House. It is a matter for the House to decide, not for me.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am having some difficulty in following the order of our business today.
I take it that the debate on London fares will run until about 7 o'clock. Following that, I gather that we shall be dealing with two small Bills, which presumably will take us to about 7.30. After that, apparently we are to debate two different aspects of foreign policy. Can you clarify whether that debate will be in parallel—in other words, will you call Members who wish to speak on both Poland and the Middle East—or are the debates intended to succeed each other? If so, to what hour will the debate extend? I ask this question, because I had wished to take part in the Middle East debate. However, if the debate on Poland, which is clearly of great importance, is to occupy all the time, hon. Members like myself would like advance notice that we shall not reach the debate on the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a fair question. In my judgment, the emergency debate will last for three hours, and then we shall get to the debate on Poland. I have already had intimation of a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in that debate. It is therefore clear that it will run until 10 o'clock. I assume, therefore, that we shall not have time in our business today to reach the second debate.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on something that arises from Question Time today. Last week, in reply to a written question, I was given a firm assurance that the Government would make a statement before Christmas about the level of death grant. Have the Government said that they wish to reply to question 17 on the Order Paper today, or are they making other arrangements for a statement about death grant to be made before Christmas?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know the Government's arrangements, and I have received no request to allow question 17 to be answered today.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the stage reached in the negotiations on the renewal of the GATT multi-fibre arrangement on trade in textiles and clothing.
Following the agreement on 8 December by the EC Council of a Community mandate, the Commission has taken part in the final stages of the GATT negotiations in Geneva for a renewal protocol. This has led to a consensus on a protocol which would extend the multi-fibre arrangement for a further period of four and a half years. The Commission representative stated that he would be recommending that the EC Council should accept the protocol for the time being. He made clear, however, that, unless the Council were satisfied with the new bilateral agreements, the Community would have to withdraw from the MFA before the end of 1982.
The Council will consider the Commission's recommendation at its meeting in January. It will do so in the light, among other things, of the outcome of its discussion on global ceilings for imports from all low-cost suppliers, preferential as well as multi-fibre arrangement.
Assuming a satisfactory agreement is reached on the global ceilings and the Council agrees to the protocol on the terms I shall describe, the scene will then be set for the final stage—the bilateral negotiations. It is only after the conclusion of this final stage that we shall be able to judge whether the outcome meets our essential objectives. I must emphasise that many points remain for the further negotiations both within the Community and with the supplying countries. I believe, however, that the House should be informed on where matters stand so far on the more essential points.
First, the Community has agreed on growth rates for the most sensitive products at levels below those which operated under the previous arrangements. These cover over one half in value of our total low-cost imports of textiles and clothing. Secondly, on cutbacks, the Commission has exchanged letters with Hong Kong, South Korea and Macao under which the suppliers note the Community's wish to seek certain reductions in access and indicate their willingness to enter into "mutually acceptable arrangements". The draft protocol also recognises the need to find "mutually acceptable solutions" to problems relating to particularly large quotas from predominant suppliers.
Apart from such agreements as may be negotiated bilaterally on cutbacks, the position on base rates is that 1982 quotas will be used for the calculation of future entitlements. The protocol, however, recognises the difficulties that could be caused by sharp and substantial increases in imports where actual imports have been significantly below quota levels. We have made it clear that there must be, in the last resort, the possibility of the Community taking unilateral action.
The draft protocol refers to a number of other matters which are important to us. Among these are the question of fraud and the need for measures to meet the conditions of a recession. We have placed on record our view that the protocol by itself is not satisfactory on these points. These matters will be pursued further in the bilaterals.
I hope that the House will agree that in the stage we have reached so far we have achieved a fair safeguard for our essential interests on the points resolved. The question of global ceilings and the detailed negotiation of the bilateral agreements remain for the future. We shall seek a satisfactory outcome of these points before we give our consent to final Community acceptance of the whole deal.

Mr. John Fraser: I recognise that the negotiations have been carried on by the Commission and not by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Having said that, however, I regard the statement as unsatisfactory, particularly for its lack of hard detail. This must be recognised by the Community in its threat to withdraw from the MFA if there are no satisfactory bilateral arrangements by the end of 1982. I realise that these matters remain subject to negotiation. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of the target for global ceilings for the MFA countries and the preferential countries? At this late stage, hon. Members are entitled to be given some idea of the area at which he and the Community are aiming in terms of specific targets.
Can the Secretary of State spell out more detail on growth rates? What are the percentage rates? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those growth rates will be based on actual imports in previous years and not on quotas? Can he say something about the arrangements that he hopes to reach for the surge mechanism and a recession clause? In the exchange of letters with Hong Kong, Macao and South Korea, is there any recognition of reciprocity of trade, say, between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom and other countries? Can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the arrangements into which he proposes to enter with Taiwan? When will he report to the House again?

Mr. Biffen: I understand perfectly the sense of frustration felt by the hon. Gentleman which, I believe., is felt on both sides of the House when negotiations that have a material effect on significant parts of the United Kingdom industry are proceeding but from which we are to some extent at arm's length removed, particularly in the House. The hon. Gentleman will also know perfectly well that this is an inescapable fact of life as we now stand in relation to our Community partners.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the issue of Taiwan falls outside the MFA negotiations. I take note of what he says and I shall refer to it at some future time.
In regard to the letters with the dominant suppliers, the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises will form an integral part of the bilateral discussions now to be set in train. We have indicated the considerable importance that we place upon the surge mechanism. The Community has accepted the point. It will be argued further in the bilateral discussions.
On the question of the growth rate, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any figures that will more specifically quantify the fact I have indicated, that is, that the growth rate for the next multi-fibre arrangement will be at figures substantially below what was experienced under MFA3. The starting point will be the 1982 quotas rather than the 1982 actual levels of imports. This was established some time ago as the European Community's negotiating stance.
On global ceilings, we shall have to await the outcome of the negotiations currently being conducted by the


Commission with the preferential suppliers. It is our intention that right across the board, in relation to both the MFA and the preferential suppliers, there will be global ceilings that reflect very much lower rates of growth.

Mr. David Steel: This is perhaps of necessity a rather vague holding statement. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for reporting to hon. Members what has happened so far. I wish to ask him about his reference to the unsatisfactory aspect of the protocol on fraud. The right hon. Gentleman referred to this matter at the end of his statement. Is it not the case that steps could be taken by his Department, for example, in improving the regulations on labelling of the countries of origin of materials as distinct from finished goods and also making greater use of our embassies and high commissions in anti-dumping policing? Is it intended that Hong Kong should be given preferential treatment over and above other Far East suppliers?

Mr. Biffen: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second point is that that is not the case. I understand that the cutbacks concluded in respect of the countries concerned are broadly of equal significance in their impact.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I shall, of course, be pleased to receive any representations from him that indicate where the Department of Trade or any other agency of the British Government can act effectively in checking fraud. This is a responsibility, however, that rests pre-eminently with the European Commission.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British textile and clothing industries, with which I have been in contact today, are deeply concerned about the vagueness and inadequacy of the draft protocol that appears to have been agreed, despite the hard work of my right hon. Friend and his hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade in these matters?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the next Council of Ministers' meeting he will try to ensure that we adopt a much more resolute approach to the negotiations on the bilateral arrangements that come after the MFA, especially the need for future quotas to be based upon actual imports in 1980 and not on the 1982 quota levels? Unless that is done, the industry believes that, in addition to already unacceptably high unemployment, a further 30,000 people are likely to lose their jobs.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend refers properly to anxieties over the fact that what has just been concluded at Geneva could lead to the most serious consequences for Western textile industries, including that of the United Kingdom. It is open to a variety of interpretations. I need only remind my hon. Friend of what the correspondent of the Financial Times said today:
The draft text of the extension protocol as agreed so far allows the Community to reduce considerably the growth of imports from developing countries".
On all those matters we should pause and take stock of the position that emerges through the conduct of the bilaterals, because that conduct will, to a substantial extent, show how we can interpret the broad principles embodied in the protocol. Although it was the Government's earnest hope that we could secure 1980

actual imports as the basis upon which to proceed on quotas, we could not secure the majority opinion for that in the European Community.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the machinery that will be instituted to provide the unilateral action by the Community to curb imports based upon the 1982 quotas? Will he accept that the industry will be concerned about the 1982 quotas being used? It must be satisfied both that unilateral action is possible and that the Community is willing to take that action. Is the Secretary of State aware that the record of the Community shows that it has not carried out its duties either effectively or in the interests of the Britsh textile industry?

Mr. Biffin: It is clear that the Community has in mind the possibility of unilateral action in dealing with the application of a satisfactory surge mechanism. When one says "unilateral action" one must remember that, as a fact of Community life, it is unilateral action by the European Community and not by Britain alone. The fashioning of that can come only through the bilateral discussions that will now proceed.

Mr. Tom McNally: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the recession clause, which once was to be the pearl of the crown of MFA3, is no longer obtainable? Will he also take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that the British textile industry has grave doubts about the European Community's will to use the textile industry as anything other than a wider pawn in trade negotiations? Those are the real doubts that he must allay.

Mr. Biffen: I realise that the hon. Gentleman speaks with authority when he asks me to allay the suspicions of the textile industry about European Community ambitions. The framework in the protocol could provide a satisfactory basis for fashioning the bilaterals and obtaining an acceptable MFA4.
When the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to study the protocol—a copy will be made available in the Library as soon as possible, but it is being signed in Geneva now—he will find that paragraph 4 deals with the problems of recession. It may not deal with them in quite the forthright, explicit or regulatory fashion that the hon. Gentleman would wish, but they are matters that must be argued in the course of the bilaterals.

Mr. Richard Body: Will my right hon. Friend put to one side the technologies of the matter and acknowledge that any multi-fibre arrangement will have the effect of denying the right of the British people to buy what they wish?

Mr. Biffen: Broadly speaking, that must be so.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise the serious concern felt by many hon. Members. He talks about improvement of importation and frauds. Does he remember when the question of cheap imported cloth was raised by hon. Members in the Chamber after a visit to Taiwan? Does he recall that the Taiwanese had woven into the selvedges of the cloth the words "100 per cent. British" or "100 per cent. Huddersfield"? We asked the Government to do something about the position then, and we are asking them again now.
I agree that Taiwan is outside the multi-fibre arrangement, but that does not solve the problems of my constituents, who are faced with job losses of 2,000 a month in the textile industry. What steps will the Government take to deal with the Taiwanese, who are outside the MFA, and heavily subsidised Eastern bloc countries, which are exporting cheap cloth to Britain?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has recognised fairly that Taiwan falls outside the scope of today's statement, but I assure him that the Department of Trade views with the utmost seriousness any question of fraud and will do all that lies within its power—in this instance it must co-operate with the European Commission—to remedy the position.
The importance that we attach to the question of fraud within the multi-fibre arrangement is such that we were not prepared to accept the matter as dealt with by protocol. We said that we would wish to return to the subject during the bilaterals.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of our constituencies contain firms that depend for the employment of their workers upon their ability to sell goods in the less developed countries and upon the principles of mutuality? Those countries can sell their goods in the United Kingdom and we can sell our machinery and high technology in their countries. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind, when entering into the bilateral discussions, the position of the least developed countries and try to ensure that any percentage diminution in their trade does not equal that of Hong Kong and Taiwan, but that they are given preferential treatment?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The bilateral agreements cannot be a blinkered, protectionist, evangelistic crusade. We must recognise that, especially in the Far East, there are economies, such as Indonesia and Hong Kong, which are developing into major markets for British engineering goods. However, for many years we have tried to strike a balance in the domestic textile industry. The purpose of the next stage of the multi-fibre arrangement is to try to balance as equitably as possible the number of factors therein contained.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have risen. I shall call two hon. Members in succession from the Government Benches and two in succession from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although today's statement will not be acceptable to the textile manufacturers at least they will know that he is trying to arrive at a satisfactory multi-fibre arrangement? That could not be said for the Labour Government, who did not include a recession clause in the MFA. That was referred to by the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally). The lack of a recession clause is the reason for the savage unemployment in Scotland. It has been caused by the vast increase in cheap foreign imports. Is not a recession clause a must in a new MFA?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that paragraph 4 of the protocol can be interpreted to provide such protection.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What is the logic of giving a lot of money in foreign aid to Third countries

to build up there industries, while erecting a complex procedure to keep out the products of those industries? Would the Common Market not be in a stronger position to operate in the way that my right hon. Friend proposes if it stopped disrupting world markets by dumping food, coal and steel?

Mr. Biffen: The MFA has complexities enough without drawing in the full workings of the CAP. There is nothing neat, clean and logical about the application of MFA, but on the whole it provides an element of domestic protection consistent also with a fairly guaranteed access to Western markets for many of the developing countries in a form of manufacture at which they excel. The MFA still has a useful purpose to fulfil in balancing the relationship between the Third world and the developed countries.

Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Secretary of State accept the thanks of many of my hon. Friends for coming to the House to give progress reports on the negotiations? As the right hon. Gentleman is a consistent critic of membership of the Common Market, does he accept that the progress of the negotiations is further proof of the way in which our membership has failed to serve the interests of British working people and of industry and that it would have been far better had we taken a direct part in the negotiations? Why did Britain fail to exercise a veto against a straight surrender of our view?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the decision to go for 1982 quotas represents a clear defeat for the British position, which was, first, to take 1980 actuals and, as a final fallback, a compromise between 1980 actuals and 1982 quotas? Does he accept that the level of 1982 quotas is so far in excess of 1980 actuals—in some cases between 100 and 200 per cent. in excess—that it will provide little or no protection against a massive growth in imports across all the sectors? Could he say——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the matter. The hon. Gentleman was called to ask a question.

Mr. Straw: I apologise for asking a series of questions. Could the Minister say——

Hon. Members: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to the House.

Mr. Straw: What chance is there within the bilaterals to ensure that growth is restrained below the levels of the 1982 quotas?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's early questions about the nature of the European Community were so embarrassing that I am happy to excuse myself through pressure of time.
I do not believe that the use of the veto, as it is popularly called, would have been a viable position for the British, It would merely have ensured that the Community could not have a settled view for the negotiations, so they could not have been started, and therefore the MFA might easily have ground to a halt, given the strict time scales. I do not believe that out of that chaos we should necessarily have snatched a position of much national advantage.
There is a substantial difference between the 1982 quotas and the 1980 actuals in many products. That fact underlines the importance of a surge mechanism. That is why the British were so determined to persuade the


Community to make that a central feature of its negotiations and to hold the position open for the bilaterals.
In a sense, it is in the bilaterals that the real shape of the MFA successor will be determined, and we can see how tough and effective a successor it is. But, however tough the negotiations over the bilaterals may be, there can be no question of the issue being reopened with the 1982 quota levels as a starting point.

BILL PRESENTED

CANADA

Mr. Secretary Atkins, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Frances Pym and the Attorney-General, presented a Bill to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 43].

Police (Compensation for Dependants in Case of Death Off Duty)

Mr. Richard Page: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the widows and other dependants of police killed off duty to receive full industrial injury compensation; and for related purposes.
The purpose of my Bill is to remove an unfairness within the social security legislation that gives the impression of machine-like cheeseparing by the State, besides causing unnecessary distress and suffering to the widows and dependants of police officers.
All employers are required under the employment liability insurance to cover employees for accidents that may occur at work, no matter from what cause, but the cover does not extend to when they are not at work. However, the situation of police officers is different. A police officer is never off duty. Not for police officers the luxury of completely relaxing, knowing that no calls will be made on their free time. Just because his shift is finished, a policeman cannot avoid getting involved if he knows that a crime is taking place, or being drawn into an incident, because he is a police officer. He cannot go to the station the next day for his next shift and say that, although he saw a crime being committed, he did nothing about it because he was off duty. We would not want it that way. If a police officer fails to take action, in certain circumstances he may be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
If, unfortunately, a police officer is killed when off duty, his widow will be awarded certain benefits under the social security legislation, but, if the insurance officer decides that death did not arise out of and in the course of the officer's employment, the rate of benefit is lower than the industrial death benefit. If the officer was on duty and he was killed in exactly the same circumstances, the full industrial death benefit would be paid.
Let me quote two examples to prove the point. The first is the case of Constable Quinn, who was shot in a public bar after coming off duty. According to the evidence, he was standing with his back to the door when terrorists burst in and shot him. The insurance officer accepted that the murder arose out of the constable's employment as a policeman but not that it arose in the course of his employment, as he was not on duty. Therefore, he disallowed the claim for benefit, so the widow has to go through the harassment of tribunals and appeals.
The second case concerns Constable Acheson, who was killed when a bomb exploded under his car when he was travelling home on a public road after completing duty at his station. Again, the insurance officer accepted that the murder arose out of Constable Acheson's employment as a policeman but held that it did not arise in the course of his employment, as he was not on duty.
I should have liked the matter to be dealt with by a policy decision by the Minister responsible but I understand that this is not possible, as cases have to be based on the interpretation of the law and on established precedents. This is not satisfactory. Therefore, the position must be set down by the House. Widows of police


officers should not have to undergo haggling for months after their husbands are killed in the enforcement of law and order. I hope that the House will agree with me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, Mr. Graham Bright, Mr. Michael Colvin and Mr. Christopher Murphy.

POLICE (COMPENSATION FOR DEPENDANTS IN CASE OF DEATH OFF DUTY)

Mr. Richard Page accordingly presented a Bill to enable the widows and other dependants of police killed off duty to receive full industrial injury compensation; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January 1982 and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

Question of Privilege

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have received a telegram from the person against whom the breach of privilege is alleged. It reads:
Mr. Speaker,
My letter to Mr. Robert Parry MP of the 15th Dec. 1981 has been complained of, I am informed, as a contempt of the House of Commons. It was not so intended and if in any way it is so construed then I humbly and sincerely apologise to you the House and to Mr. Parry.
E. Rex Makin".
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to proceed, in view of the apology.

Mr. Robert Parry: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The contents of the letter were published in yesterday's Official Report, in c. 639–40. In view of the important business that is to be discussed later this afternoon, I shall take no more time than is necessary. If we cannot have freedom of speech in local government in Liverpool, I hope that we can continue to enjoy it in the House.
I therefore beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I have had the opportunity, as have other hon. Members, of reading in yesterday's Hansard the letter from the firm of solicitors to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry). Without in any way attempting to depart from your ruling that it is technically a breach of privilege that could be referred to the Committee of Privileges, Mr. Speaker, I regret that, despite the letter of apology that we have just heard, the hon. Member for Scotland Exchange wishes to refer the matter to the Committee.
The House is at its worse when it attempts to claim privilege on minor matters. If I understand the letter correctly, it is an intrusion into the private grief of the Liberal and Labour Parties in the city of Liverpool. It stated that the hon. Member for Scotland Exchange, in his speech in the debate on the Scarman report, referred to the Liberal leader of the Liverpool city council, Sir Trevor Jones. I do not want to judge the accuracy of what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is clear that he said that the Liberal leader of the Liverpool city council had failed to declare an interest in a certain matter, and that, as a result, the matter had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
On the face of it, that statement, if made outside the House, would clearly have been defamatory, and would have entitled the Liberal leader of the Liverpool city council to take action for damages against the hon. Gentleman.
What has happened is that solicitors, acting on behalf of the Liberal leader of the Liverpool city council, have written to the hon. Gentleman pointing out not only that their client, Sir Trevor Jones, takes deep exception to what was said about him, but that they have already issued a writ for libel in respect of similar remarks made by a newspaper.
I believe that the House will discredit itself if it suggests that a letter written on behalf of a client to an hon. Member taking exception to a speech made in the House by that


hon. Member, at a time when a writ for libel had been issued concerning similar comments made outside the House, should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I hope that I can say that impartially. The matter concerns two political parties, of which I am not a member, and a firm of solicitors which, to my knowledge, has not briefed me and is unlikely to brief me.
What are solicitors, acting on behalf of a client, supposed to do? A speech is made in the House, which their client believes to be defamatory of him, and he has no rights in regard to defamation because of the privilege of the House. The solicitors write a letter of complaint to the hon. Member for Scotland, Exchange saying that their client takes exception to what was said. The solicitors, in the last paragraph of the letter, suggest that the reference to the matter in the House may have aggravated the damages that their client claims—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] The solicitors are saying no more than that. They are making no threat whatever against the hon. Member for Scotland, Exchange. They are merely saying that their client is deeply concerned, and that the reference to the matter in the House may have aggravated the damages.
I repeat that the House will do itself no good if it tries to refer to the Committee of Privileges a matter of this kind, which appears to be a dispute between the Liberal Party and the Labour Party in the city of Liverpool. I hope that the House, in its wisdom, will decide not to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. David Alton: I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). It seems to me that the gracious apology by the solicitor concerned should be accepted by the House this afternoon and that the matter should be allowed to rest there. I should have been happy if that had been the case. I am disappointed that we have to debate it in this way.
I wrote to you privately on this matter, Mr. Speaker, on 17 December, not wishing it to become public. I drew your attention to the debate on the Scarman report which took place in the House on 10 December. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) said that the leader of the Liverpool city council had failed to declare an interest——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is free to read my reply to him.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I have the reply. The hon. Member for Scotland Exchange said that the matter had been raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions——

Mr. Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) to refer to the debate on the Scarman report when he was not even in the House that evening?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) is speaking to the motion before the House.

Mr. Alton: I was present in the House that afternoon. The hon. Member for Scotland Exchange said that the matter had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and added:
so I shall say nothing more about it."—[Official Report, 10 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 1047.]

It would have been better if he had said nothing at all, because that allegation was completely without foundation. To the best of my knowledge, no matter involving a declaration of financial interest has ever been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the circumstances, clearly the reputation of the leader of the Liverpool city council, Sir Trevor Jones, who is a magistrate and a highly respected person in that community, has been brought into disrepute.
The comments of the hon. Member for Scotland Exchange were widely reported in the Liverpool Echo, and on local radio stations. Therefore, Sir Trevor's reputation has been damaged. It was for that reason that I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, requesting that you advise me on what action he could take, because his reputation had been brought into disrepute. You were kind enough to reply, suggesting that I seek to catch your eye this afternoon. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me.
The Committee of Privileges should look at the situation whereby an hon. Member can impugn someone's character or reputation and that person's solicitor, in attempting to act on his behalf, can be considered to be in contempt for saying merely that he will bring a libel action. A solicitor has a professional duty to protect his client.
Wild allegations made without foundation do not enhance the reputation of the House. They cause great anguish and personal hurt. That has happened in this case. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Scotland Exchange will reconsider his decision, that this matter will be dropped forthwith and that he will apologise for misleading the House.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I agree with everything said by the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I speak from a similar position, as I am not connected with Liverpool and I am not a member of either of the two main parties.

Mr. Bob Cryer: That is a joke. No connection? What does the hon. and learned Gentleman call the Alliance?

Mr. Lyons: I hope that since it has been ruled that there is—[Interruption.]—or may be a breach of privilege, such a breach—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can think of nothing more rude than continuous interruptions from a sedentary position as a deliberate attempt to try to put an hon. Member off when he is trying to speak. That is most unfair.

Mr. Lyons: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. In my view, such a breach is marginal. It is right to point out that if, as is alleged, an hon. Member knew that a writ had been issued for defamation and that that matter had not yet been fully litigated, it is wrong—whether or not it is against the rules of the House—for an hon. Member to repeat the alleged libel knowing that a writ has been issued claiming that the alleged remarks are false.
I hope that the Committee of Privileges will consider whether there is an obligation upon an hon. Member who wishes to repeat remarks that are the subject of alleged proceedings for libel, to tell Mr. Speaker before doing so, to see whether Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of his discretion, will allow it. My understanding is that in civil proceedings there is a discretion to regard the matter as sub


judice. Had you known, Mr. Speaker, that libel proceedings had already been initiated, and had you been in the Chair, it is highly likely that you would not have allowed the remarks to be made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry), which are now being complained of.
The Committee of Privileges should look into House of Commons practice in that respect, so that those who claim that things said of them outside the House are false, and who initiate court proceedings, are protected from careless repetition in the House. Hon. Members should be careful of the power that they have and the privilege that they enjoy .

Mr. Michael Foot: As far as I know this is the first occasion, or almost the first occasion, when there has been a debate under the new procedure for dealing with privilege cases. The House should bear that in mind when considering how to deal with this question. I still retain the view that I held when I sat in other parts of the Chamber. I am strongly in favour of not raising questions of privilege whenever it can be avoided. Hon. Members rightly insist on the right to free speech in the Chamber, but there is a strong case for saying that they should not interfere in the right of others to free speech. Hon. Members should always take that into account.
Since you have given a ruling, I think that it would be unfair, Mr. Speaker, if this matter was not referred to the Committee of Privileges. If it is not referred, as this case is the first, every case of privilege will be decided by debate before it has a chance of being considered by that Committee. We shall set a precedent. I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) takes that view. However, he has not the support of my former hon. and learned Friend, now the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wants the Committee of Privileges to look at such matters.
In the light of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and in the light of the fact that this is the first time that we have had to consider a debate in the House, the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges, which could then consider all the questions that have been raised. If we do not do that, we shall set a fresh precedent, which we do not wish to do. We shall set the precedent that matters of privilege should be dealt with usually by means of a debate on the Floor of the House. However, that is not the best way of dealing with them.
In altering the procedures on privilege, the House made a great advance and greatly limited the occasions on which privileged matters could be brought before the House. That is all to the good. However, in such circumstances, there will be hopeless confusion about how to deal with such matters if we do not accept the motion. Therefore, I hope that the motion will be supported. That does not mean that those of us who vote in favour of the motion will be prejudging the judgment of the Committee of Privileges. It will be for the Committee of Privileges to consider this first case under the new procedure. That is the wisest course for the House to take, and if the Leader of the House were here—as he should be—he might have given us the same advice.

Mr. Michael English: I fully support my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). It has been said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that we should ask the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the procedure is appropriate and whether hon. Members should be allowed to "defame" others on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members can say what they like without their remarks being regarded as defamatory by the courts.
There was a Joint Committee of both Houses. Nearly every member was, like the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), a Queen's Counsel or a Lord Justice of Appeal. They unanimously resolved that the present procedure should continue because its object is simply to prevent people from being taken to court when they justly say something in the House. If they were taken to court, the court might accept that the hon. Member involved had been free to say that. However, that hon. Member would have spent a lot of money defending himself. Hon. Members should not be forced to spend money on defending themselves. One day—who knows—the hon. Member for Edge Hill may find that our so-called privileges have a point, even in his case.
I know the senior partner in the practice concerned, which is hardly surprising since I read law at Liverpool university. The letter is signed Rex Makin and Company, and therefore not necessarily by my friend, the senior partner, but my friend is a man of considerable intellect with regard to the law. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West may have forgotten that the person who wrote the letter was, at least, a member of a practice headed by an able lawyer.
I do not therefore believe that the letter was written for any reason other than that of publicity. The letter begins:
My client, Sir Trevor Jones, has asked me to communicate".
I shall not analyse the whole of the letter because it is available for hon. Members to read. You may have given it prima facie time on the Floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, because of the last sentence, which states:
in the meantime I am instructed to write to you to record my client's deep concern about your conduct and, in due course, I will revert to it in the proceedings to which I have referred, if you have not in the meantime taken appropriate steps, as aggravating those damages to which my client is entitled.''
Without the last paragraph, the letter probably would have been unexceptionable. However, that is not for me to judge, nor, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) said, is it for the House to judge. The matter has been allowed time on the Floor of the House and the Committee of Privileges should consider the issue, even if, as I fear, it gives some publicity to some local councillor in the provinces.

Mr. Parry: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), I must point out that I am not a legal man and have received no legal training. I took advice from a number of my hon. and learned Friends. Their view was that the writer of the letter was trying to provoke me to reply outside of privilege so that I could become liable to be charged with libel.
Legal briefs against elected members of the Liverpool city council are floating around Liverpool like confetti. Some of my friends on that council, even its Labour


leader, have been virtually threatened with legal action. It is important that there should be freedom of speech in local government as well as in the House.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 58.

Division No. 36]
[4.32 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Anderson,Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Johnson, Walter (DerbyS)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bagier,GordonA.T.
Kerr, Russell


Bidwell,Sydney
Leighton,Ronald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Litherland, Robert


Boothroyd, MissBetty
McCartney.Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
McDonald, DrOonagh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKay, Men(Penistone)


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours,Dale
McTaggart, Robert


Canavan,Dennis
Meacher,Michael


Cartwright,John
Millan,Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cohen,Stanley
Morton,George


Cowans, Harry
Newens, Stanley


Cox,T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
O'Neill,Martin


Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Deakins,Eric
Parry, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Pavitt,Laurie


Dobson,Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dormand,Jack
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dubs,Alfred
Proctor, K. Harvey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Race, Reg


English,Michael
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Faith, MrsSheila
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Faulds, Andrew
Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheldon, RtHon R.


Foster, Derek
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foulkes,George
Skinner,Dennis


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Spearing,Nigel


Graham, Ted
Stallard,A.W.


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Stoddart, David


Hardy, Peter
Stott, Roger


Harrison, RtHonWalter
Strang, Gavin


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Straw,Jack


Heffer, EricS.
Taylor, Teddy (S 'end E)


Homewood, William
Wainwright.E.(DearneV)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Waller, Gary


Huckfield,Les
Ward,John


Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Watkins, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Whitehead,Phillip


Janner,HonGreville
Wilson, William (C'trySE)





Winnick,David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton,Nicholas
Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Young, David (BoltonE)





NOES


Alexander,Richard
Lloyd, Ian (Havant&amp; W'loo)


Alton,David
McNally,Thomas


Beith, A.J.
Mates,Michael


Bendall,Vivian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Benyon,Thomas (A'don)
Mills,lain(Meriden)


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Mitchell, R.C.(Soton Itchen)


Blackburn,John
Moate, Roger


Body,Richard
Normanton,Tom


Bradley,Tom
Onslow,Cranley


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Osborn,John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Patten,Christopher(Bath)


Costain,SirAlbert
Pitt, William Henry


Crouch,David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dorrell,Stephen
Rooker, J. W.


Durant,Tony
Roper,John


Eggar,Tim
Sims, Roger


Fox,arcus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Freud,Clement
Speller,Tony


Glyn, DrAlan
Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)


Gow, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Greenway, Harry
Temple-Morris,Peter


Griffiths, Pater Portsm'thN)
Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Viggers,Peter


Hawkins,Paul
Wellbeloved,James


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Wheeler,John


Jessel,Toby
Wickenden,Keith


Johnston,Russell(Inverness)



Langford-Holt,SirJohn
Tellers for the Noes:


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Official Report (Letter)

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A letter has been printed in the Official Report which is grossly defamatory of a very respected publication—The New Statesman. Would it be in order to make it clear that many of us do not accept for one moment——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will talk to me after Christmas.

Greater London Council (House of Lords Judgment)

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Monday 21 December under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
the need for the Government to make clear their intention to introduce early legislation to clarify the legal basis on which a fares increase can be determined by the Greater London Council and the London Transport Executive not later than 7 January 1982 to comply with the ruling of the House of Lords.
Everyone who lives and works in London is directly or indirectly dependent upon the running of London's public transport services. The commerce, industry and the services of the city could not function without an effective transport system. It is conceivable that we could get by without any private transport but it is inconceivable that we could survive effectively in London without public transport.
The present transport policy of the Greater London Council was developed to deal with a crisis. Under the Conservative Greater London Council decisions were taken substantially to increase fares on London Transport. In a period when general prices rose by about 50 per cent., fares on London Transport were increased by 79 per cent. There were five fare increases between June 1978 and September 1980. As a result, the number of passengers using London Transport was falling considerably. Between 1974 and 1980 bus passenger miles fell from over 3,000 million to fewer than 2,600 million, while passenger miles by the Underground trains of the London Transport Executive fell from 3,200 million to 2,643 million.
The experience of London was that of a number of metropolitan authorities which tried to bring in fare increases in the same period. The result of the increase in fares was that the number of passengers using the London Transport system fell. In London, to a greater extent than elsewhere, the result was considerable congestion in the city, the inability to schedule proper bus services and the possibility of the system being run down even more rapidly and London grinding to a halt.
In the short time that the cheap fares policy, or the "Fares Fair" policy as it is called, has been in operation, it has achieved an 11 per cent. increase in the use of London buses and a 7 per cent. increase in the use of the Underground. It has been in operation since only October of this year. The policy, if it deserves nothing else, deserves a fair trial against the major problems which it was addressed to tackling. It has been seriously undermined, if not set at naught, by the decision of their Lordships. I contend that the decision thwarts the clear intention of the Minister who introduced the legislation and, therefore, the intention of Parliament.

Mr. Terence Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman says that fares were reduced and usage increased. What was the effect on total revenue?

Mr. Booth: I appreciate that revenue is an important part of the argument. However, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall come to that when I deal with the fares and revenue effects of the policy.
I wish to demonstrate to the House the intention of Mr. Richard Marsh, the then Minister of Transport, who introduced the Bill that became the Transport (London) Act 1969. He said:
I turn now to the role of the GLC in relation to the Executive. The main powers that the Council will have, apart from the power to appoint, will be to pay grant to the Executive for any purpose it thinks fit and to issue directions to the Executive. This gives the Council the right to prescribe the policy lines to be followed and to take financial responsibility for its decisions. This is very important, because if the council wishes the Executive to do something that will cause it to fall short of its financial targets, it will itself have to take financial responsibility for it. The Council might wish, for example, the Executive to run a series of services to run at a loss for social or planning reasons. It might wish to keep fares down at a time when costs are rising and there is no scope for economies. It is free to do so. But it has to bear the cost."—[Official Report, 17 December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1247–8.]
That might have been written to envisage exactly the situation that faced the Labour GLC when it came into office. That is exactly what it wanted to do—to keep down fares at a time when prices were rising, to run a policy for social reasons. Therefore, I believe that it is clear beyond a peradventure of doubt that it was the Minister's intention. As far as I can see, Parliament in no way sought to change that in the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. John Page: The right hon. Gentleman said that the intention was that it would be possible for the Greater London Council to keep down fares. Here we have an active policy of reducing fares. Does he consider that to be on all fours?

Mr. Booth: I believe that the determination of fares policy in the sense in which it was described by the Minister of Transport of the day had to cover increasing fares at less than the inflation rate, holding them steady or reducing them, in order to embrace the objectives that the Minister was outlining, because he was outlining social objectives as well as financial policies and financial practices which could be carried out by the GLC by giving directions and giving grants to the London Transport Executive.
Yet, in the face of a decision of the House of Lords, which will clearly throw the greatest doubt, if no more, on the GLC's ability to pursue a policy which was within the Minister's intention, the present Secretary of State for Transport has refused to legislate to give effect to that intention. He has gone further. He has accused the GLC of raising manpower and expanding services beyond what is needed in pursuit of its policy. He has accused it of incurring costs substantially greater than those required for the pursuit of its present fares policy. The right hon. Gentleman is on record as having said all that. Therefore, I accept that it is very important to examine the financial effects and implications of the policy decision taken by the GLC in pursuit of a policy that it outlined in a manifesto and put before the electors, and on which it was elected.
I readily concede that the supplementary rate that the GLC proposed to levy embraced much more than the cost of the low fares policy. But that had to be so, because the GLC was required to recover a deficit that had been made in the operation of London Transport under the Conservative GLC. The deficit that it had to recover, which it inherited, was about £48 million. The cost of implementing the fares policy that the GLC proposed to introduce was about £64½ million. In addition, there was a sum of £4·7 million, which was used for the improvement of London Transport services.
By far the major bill which was incurred was a result of the Government's policy, as outlined to the House by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which was that the GLC's rate support grant would be cut, because its expenditure exceeded what the Secretary of State considered to be proper. That added £111 million to the bill. So, of a total transport expenditure of £228 million, only £64½ million was directly attributable to the low fares policy.
If one is to take seriously the allegation made by the Secretary of State for Transport in the House, that the GLC was spending much more than was needed in improving services, one must look at the service level inherited by the Labour GLC. The scheduled services are those published in the timetables stuck up on the lamp posts and in bus shelters. By careful inquiry, I have found that when the Labour GLC was elected those scheduled services totalled 200 million miles a year. That was a cruel deception, a wicked joke perpetrated on the travelling public of the capital, because the number of available, serviceable buses and the number of crews then being employed by the London Transport Executive were sufficient to cover only 168 million of those 200 million miles.
Therefore, it is not surprising that our constituents, the electors and voters of London were complaining to their representatives about the standard of the service. It is not surprising that a Labour GLC immediately set about spending some money on the improvement of the services. it has improved the service level from the 168 million service miles run, not to the 200 million—it has a long way to go before reaching that—but to 174 million.
How can the Secretary of State claim that the GLC has unreasonably expended money on improvements in services, against performance levels of that order? It inherited a service significantly in need of improvement. The increases in manpower that the GLC has made, the increases in services, have gone only a small way.
However, we should not belittle the GLC's achievement, because its increasing manpower, of which the Secretary of State complained, comes to a total increase in staff of 568 persons out of a total staff of 60,000. With less than a 1 per cent. increase in manpower employed, it has achieved a substantial increase in service miles run. That is not to say that the GLC is satisfied with the efficiency of the London Transport Executive. It is not. In fact, it is putting on considerable pressure, and it is accused by London Transport of withholding £5 million, against requirements for improving efficiency. But there is no doubt that it is a more efficient service now than when the Labour GLC inherited it.
The Secretary of State for Transport has also, subsequent to the House of Lords judgment, accused the GLC of taking revenue and grant support to ridiculous extremes. He said in the House last Friday that there was no doubt a place for some revenue support. He was right to say that. He has to approve a certain amount of it for transport supplementary grant. But he claims that the GLC has done a terrible thing; it has carried the matter to "ridiculous extremes". By what criteria does the right hon. Gentleman hold that London's level of support for its public transport services is ridiculous or in any way

extreme? Has he compared it with that of any other cities which have begun to run services approaching the level of London's?

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: May I impart to my right hon. Friend, and through him to the House, the information that Mr. McIntosh, whom I met last night, wishes to emphasise that the Labour members on the GLC are unanimously in support of this policy? It has nothing to do with violent extremism of the kind that a reactionary press has been trying to portray.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he suggests, it is important to divorce the issue whether there is correct funding and a proper, democratically determined policy for London Transport from allegations that it is manifestation of an unusual, peculiar or special view of one or two people includng Mr. Livingstone. Mr. Livingstone and I shared a platform at the time of the GLC elections and he was putting forward to the elector of London the policy on public transport of the London Labour Party.
The Secretary of State for Transport alleged that the GLC's policy was extreme. By what standards does he make that allegation? If he says that it is the amount of subsidy given to public transport services, I must point out that the subsidy paid by Brussels for its public transport system is about 70 per cent. of the total running costs. The subsidy paid in Barcelona is about 60 per cent., and in Paris—I congratulate it on its recent improvement of public transport—the subsidy is about 56 per cent. In Helsinki the subsidy is about 51 per cent. Yet the subsidy for London Transport was raised to only 46 per cent. That is well below the general level paid in capital cities throughout the world, and well below the level paid generally in cities which attempt to run major public transport systems to give the service that their electors require.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments, especially about the 46 per cent. subsidy. In all fairness, does he consider it right and proper that the GLC should pay a 46 per cent. subsidy when people who live in the Home Counties benefit from it without making any contribution?

Mr. Booth: London ratepayers do not pay all of the 46 per cent. That is the amount which the London Transport Executive receives from the public coffers towards running its services. Of course, part of it is paid by London ratepayers, but the amount which the Secretary of State allows as qualifying for transport supplementary grant is paid to the extent of 70 per cent. from general taxation.
I do not wish to enter the argument whether the Secretary of State has allowed enough to qualify for transport supplementary grant. That is a matter of some importance and it can be argued later. It is not the issue at stake tonight. The issue at stake is whether the Secretary of State should introduce legislation to make it clear that the GLC can, in the event of his not being prepared to accord the transport supplementary grant, raise rates to carry through the fares policy which it believes to be the correct one.
I hope that I have established the point that, on the basis of comparisons between London and other cities running major public transport systems, there is no evidence to


support the Secretary of State's contention that the GLC has gone to ridiculous extremes. On the contrary, it is doing rather less than the average.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the case put by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) were carried to its logical conclusion no service which in any way lost money could be subsidised by the GLC? In other words, every bus, Underground or other route that did not make money would be cut. I suspect that many of the cuts might be in areas such as Bromley, Chingford and similar parts of Greater London.

Mr. Booth: Of course there is a danger that anyone who pursues the argument that it is unreasonable to load the burden on to the rates might come to the conclusion that it is unreasonable to load it on to taxation and finish up arguing that we should have only such public transport services as can be run profitably. There would then be massive cuts. I therefore hope that that is not what was implied by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Is not the real question whether this should be dealt with by taxation or through the rates? If it is decided that it should be local and not through taxation, we must have a fairer system than the present one. Old-age pensioners in London travel virtually free, whereas pensioners in many other parts of the country cannot do so because the ratepayers there cannot possibly carry the burden that the GLC carries. It is therefore grossly unjust to the old people of this country when some people, because they live in London rather than in Margate or the North of England, can enjoy that privilege. For that reason, I submit that transport should be dealt with on a national basis, and if it be local at all it should be on an agency basis operating to the Department.

Mr. Booth: I have considerable sympathy with the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman advances, but that is not the issue at stake today. There is no possibility of changing the rating and taxation systems today or of passing a resolution to transfer the entire cost of sustaining public transport to the national Exchequer. The issue before us today is that which arises from the House of Lords judgment and the extent to which it prevents the GLC from pursuing a fares policy which at the time when it was enunciated was legal.
I return to the Secretary of State's contention that the GLC is doing something so extremist as to be ridiculous. I have shown that international comparisons do not sustain that argument, but why does not he make the internal comparisons in this country? Does he hold, for example, that it is right for South Yorkshire to have a fare box ratio which carries only 35 per cent. of the cost of sustaining the services through the fare box? I am quoting 1979 figures now, not current figures. In Merseyside the fare box carried only 59 per cent. and in Tyne and Wear 68 per cent., when London was drawing 75 per cent. of the cost of maintaining the service from the fare box. Was that fair and just?
If it was acceptable then that the policies of those massive local authorities should operate on different fare box ratios, why should the right hon. Gentleman accept an interpretation of legislation by the House of Lords which cuts across that in the light of the special situation of

London trying to tackle a problem which was perhaps tackled earlier in other areas? Does he regard the legislation applying to metropolitan authorities as different from that which applies to Greater London? That was not the case for the Secretary of State who introduced the 1969 legislation, who made it clear that he was trying to create a similar situation. Is it the view of the present Secretary of State that the metropolitan authorities are in a different position?
On the question of financing, the Secretary of State said in the debate on Friday that a 60 per cent. increase in London fares would bring them back to the 1980–81 level in real terms. I do not contest that as a literal statement, but I contest the implication that it would right the situation. It ignores the fact that in 1980–81, NA hen fares were at that level, London Transport was running at a deficit. That deficit must be recovered and paid. That alone will require a further increase in fares. The 1980–81 level which could be achieved by a 60 per cent. increase would not compensate for the accumulated deficit with which the GLC must now deal or for the revenue lost during the period of the present fares policy.
The chairman and chief executive officer of the London Transport Executive told me and made it generally clear that the calculations made by London Transport show that a 150 per cent. fare increase would be required and service cuts would need to be made so that it could break even by the end of 1983. It is no good the Under-Secretary shaking his head in dissent. That statement was made by a man with the responsibility for running the London Transport Executive and he takes the view that the decision of the House of Lords confers, if anything, a greater responsibility on the executive in the running of its services and the meeting of the costs involved.
Sir Peter Masefield's view is that the judgment would also mean a reduction of service levels on the buses of at least 30 per cent., and possibly 40 per cent, and the cutting back of London Underground services by as much as 20 per cent. Nobody knows what the drop in ridership would be on London Transport if there were fare increases of that order, and, therefore, we are all speculating when trying to calculate the effects of a 150 per cent. increase in fares. However, extrapolations that can be made from the experiences of metropolitan authorities suggest that such an increase might have the effect of reducing the number of passengers by as much as a half and could cut down the use of Underground trains by as much as 30 per cent. Sir Peter Masefield's judgment was that that would mean branch line closures and the closing of up to 20 per cent. of the Underground stations.
A transport crisis can be precipitated by the Law Lords' decision and it is, therefore, clear that decisions are urgently needed about what subsidy should be permitted. The fare increase that may be made with confidence in March should be supported, if necessary, by legislation which the Secretary of State should introduce so that London Transport can be run in an orderly manner.
We must decide the level of transport services needed in the capital and who is to determine it. Will the Secretary of State shelter behind the House of Lords decision and allow London Transport to collapse, or is he prepared to face up to the fact that the community of London voters must have some democratic rights to determine, on the basis of their being prepared to pay, a level of services that they regard as adequate?

Mr. Shersby: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly concentrated on the problems facing London passengers. That interests all hon. Members, particularly those who represent London constituencies. Will he also address his mind to the real problem—I am not making a political point—which faces London ratepayers, particularly those just above the rate rebate level and those responsible for running small businesses? From what the right hon. Gentleman said, I take it that he is now directing his remarks primarily to the——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Booth: I have made it clear that, while I am sympathetic to arguments that a greater proportion should be borne by the national Exchequer, that is not a matter which directly arises from the House of Lords judgment. That judgment impinged on how far it was legal for the GLC, faced with the decision by the Secretary of State on how much transport supplementary grant he would allow, to obtain rates to finance a fares policy which it believed was right, which was advocated in the GLC elections and on which the Labour members were elected.
The judgment means that ratepayers, as opposed to national taxpayers—although in many cases they are the same—should contribute towards the support of the services. Taxpayers are relieved to the extent that the tax system is progressive, but I hold that rate rebates and the services that result from the improved London Transport operation affect the whole community. The man who drives his Rolls-Royce down the Strand benefits to the extent that the Strand is not congested because of an efficient London Transport operation. It is only fair that he should pay rates and taxes so that the London Transport system may be efficient.
If the House of Lords decision is not followed by legislation, it will produce a chaotic situation in London. It would be chaotic in the short term—trying to sort out the financial implications of a supplementary rate which could not be legally levied—but even more chaotic in the long run for the London Transport system.
There is a clear responsibility on the Government to make certain decisions and to give clear answers to certain questions. Whatever else the Secretary of State says tonight, he must say whether he accepts Sir Peter Masefield's judgment about the 150 per cent. increase in fares being required and, if he does not, on what basis he will require or go about achieving such reductions in services operating with only the 60 per cent. increase that he has referred to.
What is more, the Secretary of State must tell us whether he intends that Parliament should have the right, in the face of the judgment, to decide the way in which legislation should limit, curtail or free local authorities throughout the country to determine how far they should provide public transport services beyond those that can be financed on the basis of the transport supplementary grant ratio.
If the Secretary of State is not prepared to do any of these things, he will be like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. He will be sitting in his ivory tower while the London transport system goes from bad to worse and creates enormous problems for all those who live and work in the city.
It is no good the Secretary of State trying to tell London Transport that it must sort out the problem of legislation.

Only the House can do that, and it can be done only within the required time scale if the Secretary of State brings forward a proposition for legislation.
If the Government will not give the necessary support to regenerate the transport systems of our cities, the least that they can do is to legislate to let those who have the will and support of local voters get on with the job of regenerating their own transport systems.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): The emergency debate is taking place, first, because Mr. Speaker has allowed it under the rules of the House and, secondly, because of the Opposition's concern, which they are entitled to express and which has been expressed forcibly by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), that the GLC will probably have to approve the London Transport budget for 1982 during the Christmas holidays. The motion that the right hon. Gentleman moved yesterday speaks of the need for early legislation.
London Transport's budget should be settled soon. It should have been settled earlier, because London Transport's accounting year begins in just over a week, but I realise that it was delayed by the Bromley case.
I shall begin by again making clear the Government's view on the central issue to which the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness returned time and again. It is the Government's view that nothing in the House of Lords judgment prevents the GLC and London Transport from going ahead and agreeing a budget that is within the law. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that that is not now possible, I must ask him to consider the legislation which has worked for 12 years under parties of both colours at County Hall and under successive Governments. Both parties have paid revenue support and received transport supplementary grant towards revenue support from successive Governments.

Mr. Ron Leighton: What level of subsidy would be legal?

Mr. Howell: I shall come to the level of revenue support that has been given in past years and the level of revenue support for which TSG has been accepted. The hon. Gentleman asks what is legal. For that we must look back over the working of the Act in the past 12 years. During those years certain levels of revenue support have been approved by the Government and certain levels of grant have been given by the GLC. That has been the pattern.

Mr. Clinton Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) asked a pertinent question. Surely the issue is that over the years Governments and local authorities believed that a certain situation was lawful. It was never challenged.
Is it not at least possible that the situation that prevailed during that period could have been succesfully challenged? We do not know the answer, but the right hon. Gentleman must tell us what he considers to be the appropriate level of legal subsidy.

Mr. Howell: During the years levels of revenue support, grant and subsidy have been given. The


judgments of the Law Lords make it clear that a degree of revenue support and of grant are proper elements in the making of the London Transport budget.
The GLC is in the same position as before to receive a budget from London Transport and to seek to approve it. If the GLC feels that it cannot carry out its duties, my door is open. It can discuss the position with me. There has been no change of policy. We have the judgments and the continuing policy of approving a degree of revenue support. The Government have always recognised that, and it is reflected in the TSG accepted expenditure that I announced only yesterday. If, after taking advice and considering the London Transport budget the GLC feels that it cannot carry out its duties, my door is open. We can discuss the position.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is it the Government's view that, as a point of law, the revenue subsidies that have been given in past years—not the 25 per cent.—are lawful? If so, how do they square that view with the fact that two of the five Law Lords disagree with that view and another does not help us, because he based his judgment entirely on the loss of rate support grant? Two and a half Law Lords are against the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Howell: The Government's view is that the position is unchanged and that revenue support can be paid. If, after taking advice and considering the matter, the council feels that it cannot carry out its duties, let it come to me. I read in the newspapers that the council wishes to make an approach, but I have had no direct approach.
The Government believe that there is nothing in the judgment to prevent the GLC and London Transport from going ahead and agreeing a budget that is within the law. That would certainly include a degree of revenue support.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: I have already given way about five times in 10 minutes. If the right hon. Gentleman will let me have 10 minutes of speech, I will give way to him later.
I understand that the GLC is not meeting to resolve its position until early in January. When it does meet, I shall be ready to discuss the problems with the council. I have made that clear, and I believe that is the right and prudent way to proceed. I am sure that, on reflection, hon. Members will realise that that is the sensible way to go about the matter.
In the House on Friday I said that we would not legislate simply to allow the GLC to carry on as before. I realise that that is not welcome to some, including the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who feel that the GLC should carry on in that way. The Government's view, expressed in policies and in repeated warnings and observations by my predecessor and many others, is that the pattern being followed by the GLC was not in the interests of any Londoner, whether fare payer, ratepayer or, in particular, industrial ratepayer. It would not be appropriate to legislate to allow the council to carry on as before. However, if the GLC finds itself incapable of sorting out the difficulties, let it come and see me.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is not the position simply that the Law Lords ruled that the GLC and London Transport were entitled to have enough subsidy to keep the Underground and the buses going—without any subsidy

they might not have been able to do that—but were not entitled to use a subsidy from the rates for social or redistributive functions?

Mr. Howell: I have chosen my words carefully, and my interpretation is that which I spelt out a few moments ago. If, after resolving its position and taking advice, the GLC concludes that it is incapable of sorting out these undeniably severe difficulties, let it come to me.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the practical question that he did not answer on Friday and has not yet answered today: how is the GLC to determine what level of subsidy is within the law?

Mr. Howell: By taking advice and looking at the law as it stands, and has stood over many years, and at the practice under successive Governments. If the council has difficulty in reaching a view, after taking advice, it can certainly come and see me.
In the meantime, it must be recognised that an important judgment has been handed down. It is being studied by the parties involved, and we are studying the implications for the Government. That ought to be obvious. It does not justify the Opposition's demand that we should rush into legislation.
Let me confirm the Government's policy on the subsidy issue, because there have been a number of suggestions that there is a pitched battle between those who believe that there should be no support for urban and suburban transport systems and those who believe that there should be a massive degree of subsidy, with the question of how it is financed—whether through a sharp increase in the rates or an additional subvention from the Exchequer—being left on one side.
I confirm that the Government's policy remains unchanged. My TSG settlement announced yesterday accepts for grant £89 million of revenue support for London. That is 14 per cent. higher in cash terms and 5 per cent. higher in real terms than the 1981–82 level. It is not a punitive settlement—and, to be fair, I do not believe that it has been described as such. I have been equally fair and reasonable towards the GLC on its other transport expenditure. It will receive nearly 40 per cent. of the total grant paid to local authorities in England.
The settlement indicates clearly my view that urban transport cannot operate without support. That is surely confirmed by the TSG system. The GLC, or any authority, is not bound to keep to the TSG figure—the accepted expenditure on which grant is given by the central Government. That figure was taken as accepted expenditure by the Government in yesterday's announcement. It is guide to the Government's view of a sensible degree of support.
Of course, an increase in fares will be needed in 1982. How can that be avoided if ratepayers are not to shoulder a still higher burden? One of my hon. Friends asked the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness about ratepayers. He had little of worth to say on the matter. A balance has to be struck between the duty to ratepayers and to transport users. That fact has always been recognised, and the point was made in the judgments handed down by their Lordships.
It is not for me to say what the increase in fares should be. If a sharp rise is now needed, it is a reflection not only of a reversal of the low fares policy, but of the GLC's inefficiencies and cavalier attitude to costs which have


prevailed since May. If the right hon. Gentleman challenges me and asks what evidence there is for that, I refer him to the regrettable saga of the pay increases. Busmen were willing to settle for 8 per cent. However, that was followed by an 11 per cent. increase for Underground staff. That increase led to a reopening of the busmen's award and brought it up to 11 per cent., and all London Transport employees were given a one-off £50 payment to compensate them for the reduced value of travel concessions and the anticipated supplementary rate demand. Those settlements cost London Transport £5 million more than it had budgeted for. I cannot believe that any hon. Member would condone that attitude, especially when we are talking about ratepayers' money and high rates being imposed on people who often find it difficult to pay them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to support that attitude, even though he strongly believes in the doctrine of low fares. There is another side to the story which cannot be dismissed, and a balance has to be drawn.
If people ask why fares have to go up so much, the GLC should say why it allowed this dangerous situation to develop. It was warned again and again by my predecessor and others that its policy was misguided and could lead to difficulties. That has happened. It is now for London Transport to propose, and the GLC to approve, a reasonable and legal provision of subsidy.
I have made clear in endless interventions that it is for the GLC, in the light of the judgments, to take advice and to make and approve a budget with London Transport. If the GLC is in difficulties, it can come to me and discuss the problem. It has only to look at the level of revenue support which is accepted for TSG grant, or to look back over the past 12 years during which the legislation has worked, to see that the law allows revenue support and a budget to be made for London Transport and for the city's and suburbs' transport systems to operate with a degree of grant.
That is the central issue that led the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness to seek an emergency debate. I recognise his concern, but I do not believe that it is justified. We cannot be certain where the upheavals in London Transport over the past few months, or the attitude of the GLC as it develops, will eventually lead us. Some people have suggested that out of the turmoil since October and the GLC's present difficulties could come ideas for a better pattern of transport for London and the suburbs. That is one of the matters that the Select Committee is considering, and I look forward to its conclusions. No doubt it will take account of Sir Peter Masefield's views, as well as those of many others who have given evidence. This is a wide-ranging, complex and important subject. It would be disastrous to rush into immediate legislation of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman has urged today. I repeat, if the GLC has problems, it should come and talk to me, and I have no doubt that it will do so.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State has said that the GLC should come to see him in the evemt of difficulties. Would he object if it came to see him to discuss the possibility of legislation, because he ruled out immediate legislation in his earlier sentence?

Mr. Howell: I cannot answer that question until the GLC has produced proposals—I gather that it cannot do that until after Christmas—and formulated views on how to proceed in the light of the judgment. I have read in the press that the leaders of the GLC wish to come and see me, and I have said that my door is open. I shall certainly discuss proposals with the GLC, if it feels that it is in difficulty. My view is that the law remains as it has been on the statute book, that the Government's policy is the same as it has been on revenue support, and that there is nothing to stop the GLC making and approving a budget with London Transport. However, the GLC and London Transport will have to work that out.
I strongly advise the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness to approach the whole matter calmly. Nothing will be gained, and a great deal of unnecessary anxiety will be caused, by demands for instant Government measures. I hope that, on reflection, he will agree that some of his remarks about collapse will be likely to cause worry rather than improvement. There is a danger that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will overdramatise the implications of the judgment. It is perfectly clear from a cursory reading—clearly, its implications will need to be studied more thoroughly and at greater leisure—that he is exaggerating the situation. I am sure that when the House has debated the matter today, it will come to this conclusion and reject the motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. William Pitt: A number of my constituents are concerned to know how much they will get back of the supplementary rate that they have already paid, and when they will get it. Some of them are faced with bills of £50, £60 and £70, and at this time of year they have a right to know whether they will get anything back and if so, what percentage it will be.
We are in an anomalous position. This debate has been called to clarify the position over the House of Lords GLC ruling. The opacity of the Secretary of State's speech has not clarified anything for me. However, we must accept the Lords interpretation of the law as it stands, and we call on the Government to rectify the situation. The judgment was given on only one set of facts—the implementation of the radical GLC "Fares Fair" policy—but there are signs that any deliberate subsidy so scrutinised could be found to be unlawful. It took this extreme state of affairs to expose the inadequacy of provision for local government autonomy in transport. For the sake of a soundly-based and respect-worthy constitution we should be grateful to Bromley council, but in other respects we should deplore the apparent immediate effects of the decision, because London fares are to be increased by at least 60 per cent. and the anthill of local government finance is again to be disturbed.
Economically, socially and environmentally, an about turn of the kind now required would be disastrous. The Liberal member of the GLC who represents Richmond has not joined in the clamour of Tory jubilation, because he recognises the need for a clearly thought out transport policy. On the other hand, the majority party at County Hall has set about implementing its policy in the wrong way and has dogmatically committed itself to freezing productivity and lowering fares while being less than open to ratepayers about the effects of such a subsidy.
Three major issues, excluding the issue of local government democracy, emerge from the judgment. The


first is whether it is sensible to argue that only public transport travellers benefit from a good service. In most cities, support of public transport is not seen as a burden on ratepayers, taxpayers or employers. It is seen as a payment for significant benefits received in the form of greater employment opportunities, more successful retail activities and enhanced inter-city development potential, all accompanied by lower levels of road construction costs, road congestion, noise and pollution. Accordingly, a much wider range of public transport funding is available overseas.

Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members, who are not Front-Bench Members, to read prepared speeches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It used to be the practice of the House that prepared speeches were accepted only from Front-Bench speakers. It is a practice which, I regret, is not always followed.

Mr.George Cunningham: It is much quicker.

Mr. Pitt: I regret, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not hear what you said above the noise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was explaining that it had been the practice to permit the use of copious notes, but that speeches should not be read from the Back Benches.

Mr. Pitt: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall continue. A much wider range of public transport subsidies is available overseas. I shall not give the list, for fear that I shall again be accused of reading.
My second point relates to British Rail services in London, which are funded nationally. Is it not a good point to argue that London Transport fares should also gain the benefit of subsidy that is not related specifically to London as a whole? In a letter to The Times Sir Peter Masefield said:
Few would disagree that to load on to London's ratepayers the subsidy needed for services which benefit so many out-of-London passengers and include such a high social content is neither just nor equitable, though the GLC had no other source of revenue. Good public transport is recognised outside the United Kingdom as to a large extent a national responsibility, most of all for a capital city".
It is stupid to accept that there can be no subsidy for public transport in cities, whether capital or otherwise. The Secretary of State has given the House no real lead about the subsidy that should be considered for public transport. There are exceedingly efficient public transport systems in Hamburg and Paris, as I know from experience, and in many other capital cities of Europe. Conservative Members indicated during the debate last Friday that such subsidies were the product of a Marxist imagination. I submit that the mayors of Hamburg and Paris would prefer not to be regarded as Marxists. Yet those two cities have particularly efficient public transport systems subsidised at a far higher rate than London even under Mr. Kenneth Livingstone.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when this issue was first raised in the House on Thursday last week the only hon. Member who referred to the present Labour majority on the GLC as Marxist was his alleged hon. Friend the SDP Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved)?

Mr. Pitt: I was not referring to what happened last Thursday. I was recalling last Friday's debate, when

several Conservative Members referred to Mr. Livingstone's Marxist subsidies. That is irrelevant to the issue. The need is for a proper, sensible and intelligent public transport system in London.

Mr. Jessel: I should like the hon. Gentleman to make it clear—it is not clear to me—whether or not he favours a massive subsidy from London ratepayers to support London Transport. What is his position?

Mr. Pitt: I do not favour a massive subsidy by any particular body of people, whether it consists of London ratepayers, London industrialists or anyone else. My argument is that we must come to terms with the fact that capital city transport systems run by subsidy. There are various modes of taxation, including a local government income tax, taxes from road tolls and taxes from property that can be used to subsidise transport in major cities. These are the issues to which hon. Members should address themselves. Bromley council took an action to the High Court, as was its right, to defend, in its view, the democratic needs of its ratepayers. As a result, we find that if we are not careful, we shall condemn all subsidies on transport systems.
The Secretary of State was asked several times what level of subsidy the GLC could raise to pay for its transport system, but on each occasion he failed to answer. Hon. Members must address themselves to this issue. We must accept that subsidised transport is a fact.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: An essential subsidy.

Mr. Pitt: My hon. Friend says that it is an essential subsidy. As a result of their Lordships' judgment we face the peril of any subsidy granted to any transport system, or something else, being declared illegal. That is the morass from which we are trying to extract ourselves. Hon. Members were trying to get out of that morass last Friday. So far, however, the opacity of Government statements has made me even more confused than I was when I began the argument.

Mr. Shersby: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman advocate the possibility of road tolls to subsidise public transport. Will he expand on that?

Mr. Pitt: I was merely illustrating the variety of taxes and the variety of methods that could be used to attract income and revenue to subsidise transport systems. lion. Members must address themselves to the problem of inner city transport. The Labour administration at the GLC to its credit, addressed itself to the problems. It elected to subsidise the transport system from the rates. I do not agree with the political judgment that was made, but it should have made greater economic study of the whole operation. It should not have inflicted such swingeing burdens on the ratepayers of London.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It was the Secretary of State.

Mr. Pitt: I take the point about the Secretary of State. The burden imposed on local government by the Secretary of State for the Environment is a contributory factor to the level of rates.
Hon. Members should be clear, by the end of the debate, what they mean by a subsidy. The Secretary of State should say what he regards as the GLC's proper subsidy for transport. It should be agreed, without


continuous recourse to the High Court and debates on the subject, that city transport systems, especially in a city the size of London, cannot exist as an entity in isolation. It must exist as a public service. There must be a proper, intelligently collected, level of subsidy.

Mr. Terence Higgins: The official Opposition have fallen into the habit of moving emergency motions or motions of censure immediately before recesses. On the past two occasions their motions ended in fiasco. It will be interesting to see how the position develops as the eveninig progresses. I immediately declare an interest as a London ratepayer and a London Transport user. I am not alone in that, although some hon. Members may be users of London Transport without being London ratepayers.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) was rather opaque about the official policy of the Liberal Party. I presume that he is speaking for the Liberal Party in the matter. He believes that there should be clarification whether those who have already paid the supplementary rate will get a refund. An article in The Daily Telegraph a short time ago suggested they may not get refunds. That is an important matter, not least for those who pay the supplementary rate by instalments. They may wish to change their bankers' orders if they cannot get a refund for the amounts that they have already paid.
Broader questions must also be raised. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who said that in clarifying the judgment and talking about the motion questions relating gnerally to concessionary fares in Britain should not be raised. I refer to the intervention by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) about fares subsidies generally. It is grossly unfair that people, especially pensioners, who use public transport in London should receive a substantial subsidy from the ratepayers when people in other towns, including my constituency, do not. That is because, to a large extent, the pensioners who receive the fares subsidy are the pensioners who pay the rates, and there is a much higher percentage of pensioners in constituencies such as mine than in central London. Therefore, there is a strong case for considering the matter nationally.
Hitherto, the argument has been that the concession must be taken away from some people to give it to others. That would be the most equitable thing to do. If we are to have such arrangements, they should be on a national rather than a local basis. Perhaps the events of the past few weeks give us an opportunity—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take it—to consider concessionary fares.
I wish to take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness about fairness to ratepayers. It is important to stress that a large part of the burden that the GLC tried to impose on ratepayers, and which has now been altered by the House of Lords decision, fell on industrial ratepayers, who have no vote in the matter.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness suggested that the courts should be guided by what was said in the debates at the time of the relevant legislation. That is a traditional argument about the courts being

allowed to consider the travaux preparatories, and especially the Hansard records. I appreciate the arguments put forward in that debate. They were stressed by Justinian in the Financial Times a few days ago. However, we run into great difficulty if we say that the law shall be what the Minister said he believed it should be rather than the words in the legislation. It raised broad issues. We are not bound by the words of Richard Marsh in that debate.

Mr. Booth: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. My view is not that the courts should believe that the law is whatever the House or the Minister intended it to be, but that if the courts or the Law Lords rule that the law is different from what the House intended it to be, we should relegislate.

Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman has clarified his position, but I see no reason to agree with what the previous Labour Government believed to be the right policy. The matter should be reappraised in the changed circumstances of today.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness pointed out that fares have been cut and that bus and Underground usage has increased. I asked him what had happened to the revenue. He said that he would tell me, but he did not say what the effect on revenue was. On the figures that he quoted for fare changes and usage, it is clear that the revenue must have decreased substantially, as a result of which the burden on the ratepayers has been increased.
The transport undertaking should try to operate commercially, or greater inefficiency will result. If, after the event, we find that it is still making a loss, that is another matter; it is different from the undertaking and the GLC from the outset trying not to operate commercially but to achieve losses. The House should take into account the large distinction.
We are now told that the increase necessary to make up the 40 per cent. cut in fares is somewhere between my right hon. Friend's estimate of 60 per cent., through 150 per cent. and up to Mr. Livingstone's estimate of 200 per cent. My impression is that costs have risen substantially in the meantime, because London Transport knew that it had to rely on the ratepayer to subsidise it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the pay increase for London Transport employees included a lump sum of £50, in part designed to make up for the supplementary rate. If so, it raises the question whether the ratepayers will get back part of the £50. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will clarify the matter when he replies to the debate.
There is an interesting article on the front page of The Standard today which relates to inefficiencies in London Transport's maintenance operations. There is a strong argument for investigating the pictures and accounts in that article.
The debate raises a fundamental point about the functions of the GLC, but it raises the even more important question whether, given those functions and the operating costs of the GLC, we need that tier of local government now. That is well worth considering, and I hope that, in a broader context, my right hon. Friend will consider it carefully.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is unfortunate that this subject raises such


passions, and I do not plead innocent to these passions. One reason why it raises passions is that the 25 per cent. fare reduction as a policy has been identified with the name of Mr. Ken Livingstone. I would not want to identify myself in any way whatever with Mr. Ken Livingstone.
May I point out to the House, if it helps anyone, that reducing fares by 25 per cent. is far too sensible a policy to have come from the brain of Mr. Ken Livingstone? His idea and that of some of his friends in the Labour caucas in the GLC was to have completely free transport. He was pushed off that policy only by protests from trade unions, which pointed out that it would mean a massive loss of jobs. For Mr. Livingstone and his immediate friends that was not the preferred policy, so no one should feel obliged to oppose it simply because of its connection with that name.
It is a long time since the House, both in Committee and on the Floor, started to espouse the cause of general subsidies for public transport. I recollect, for example, the report of the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee in 1972, of which I was a member. I commend to hon. Members a re-reading of that report where it said:
In the new local government structure, the conurbations will be run by the metropolitan authorities who will be able to give revenue support to the services they themselves operate".
Later it said:
It follows that capital support by itself is an unsuitable way of meeting deficits.
Most witnesses thought that operational subsidies were inescapable".
We concluded on that section:
We are satisfied that, if public transport is to be substantially improved, operational subsidies will be needed".
That was as long ago as 1972. The notion that operational subsidies—revenue subsidies as against capital subsidies—are something new, unheard of and unnatural does not bear examination.
That is without saying anything about the practices of other countries, which almost universally support the notion of operational subsidies. One can quote Paris, Bonn, Vienna, Strasbourg, Hamburg, Munich, New York and on and on. Clear-sighted Frenchmen have not regarded this as a revolutionary proposal. The Paris subsidy of 75 per cent. or so, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), was not invented by the present French Administration. It was invented by Chirac and Giscard d'Estaing in response to public protests about the situation that pre-existed.
I cannot believe that the House of Lords judgment will go down as illustrating a clear distillation of principles from the words of a statute and the circumstances of a case. Each of the five judgments rambles over the territory in what can only be called a head-scratching way, making it impossible for the consumer of the judgment to know at the end just what the law is held to be, except negatively, and then only negatively on a few points. When one puts the five judgments together, the effect is chaos.
Wilberforce, Scarman and Brandon, in different language, and for different reasons, seem to agree that although grants from the GLC towards revenue are lawful—Wilberforce seems a bit uncertain on that—they cannot be pre-planned. An unavoidable deficit—and presumably a deficit arising from incompetence—can attract a grant but, in the words of Scarman,
as a necessity and not as an object of social or transport policy".

On the other hand, Diplock and Keith say emphatically that one can pre-plan a fare system that requires a revenue grant from the GLC to fill the gap between expenditure and revenue from fares and the unlawful thing about the present case was the extent of the subsidy. Diplock says that it was certainly unlawful, given the need to road ratepayers with the burden of the lost Government rate support grant, without saying whether it would have been unlawful otherwise. Keith goes further and says that the 25 per cent. subsidy, presumably on its own without the loss of Government grant, was a breach of ordinary business principles and therefore unlawful.
Frankly, there are passages in the judgments that cause me concern over the quality of the work of the House of Lords. For example, Lord Keith on page 9 says that if the 25 per cent. subsidy was lawful, a 50 per cent., 75 per cent. or 90 per cent. subsidy could be regarded as lawful, but he does not seem to believe that it is right to put it the other way round. If the 50 per cent. subsidy is unlawful, on what ground can a 20 per cent., 10 per cent. or 1 per cent. subsidy be regarded as lawful? However, Lord Keith elsewhere accepts that some pre-planned revenue grant is lawful.
Diplock and Scarman both refer pointedly to the fact that a large proportion of the rates are paid by commercial ratepayers who have no vote. What on earth is the relevance of that? VAT is paid by commercial bodies alone. Does that alter the Government's obligations over what they can do with the funds?
Throughout the judgments there is the assumption that paying for public transport partially from tax sources is inherently bad and unnatural. Wilberforce is so misinformed as to believe that the idea of such a thing could not have been in the minds of Members of Parliament in 1969.
Diplock and Brandon would have ruled the GLC out only on the ground that it believed that it was bound to go ahead with the subsidy because of its election manifesto, even if on no other grounds. They did not seem to contemplate the idea that the GLC councillors believed genuinely that their action was lawful and that within the context of an assumption of legality they felt that they were under a moral obligation to implement their promise. Frankly, after reading the 100 pages of the judgment I am inclined to adapt an old saying—if that is what the lawyer says, then the lawyer is an ass. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the House of Lords has wrongly and almost perversely interpreted the Transport (London) Act 1969.
Let us leave aside the debates in the House when the Bill was going through—which the court cannot take account of, but which we can. Even the words of the statute are, to put it at its lowest, as open to a contrary interpretation as the one found in various forms by the Lords.
The starting point is the words in section 3, which state that
the Council shall have power to make grants … to the Executive for any purpose".
Of all the bits of the statute and of case law invoked by the Lords, that is the bit of law whose apparent meaning is the clearest. Prima facie it allows the GLC to do what it did, and some of the Law Lords, but not all, accepted that the words allow subsidies to revenue in some circumstances and to some extent.
The first argument used to escape from the apparent meaning of the words is that the power to make grants is


qualified by the requirement of section 7(6), that in exercising its functions the GLC is to have regard to the duty imposed on the London Transport Executive to try to break even, taking one year with another. The statute makes it clear that the policy-making body was to be the GLC. The London Transport Executive was to be the implementing or executive authority. The power of the GLC to make grants comes first in the statute and the duty of the executive to break even comes afterwards.
The natural interpretation of the Act is to regard the obligations of the executive as obligations within the framework of policy laid down by the GLC, including any decision to make grants under section 3. If Parliament had wanted to lay an obligation on both the GLC and the executive to try to break even, it could easily have done so. The fact is that it did not do so, and that is significant. It is significant that Lord Diplock accepted that view. He stated:
Nor could I readily be persuaded that any such prohibition was intended to be imposed sub silentio by Parliament".
We are entitled to look at what was said during the passage of the 1969 Bill. The fact that the House of Lords says that this is the law is not the end of the matter. Without changing the law, we can do something. When, in 1973, a court in Northern Ireland found the law to be what we did not want it to be, within 24 hours—it was an emergency—Parliament passed a declaratory measure which declared the law to be what we had always intended it to be and thought we were making it.
The 1969 Act was intended to implement proposals that were brought before the public in July 1968 in a White Paper entitled "Transport in London". Paragraph 38 said:
The Government believe that urban transport is essentially a local rather than a national matter. Local people should be the best judges of the standard and quality of services they want and are prepared to pay for. In London, the Greater London Council can appropriately take on this major task.
Explaining the Bill to the House on Second Reading, the then Minister of Transport, now Lord Marsh, said:
The basic purpose of the Bill is to place the main responsibilities for transport in London where, in my view, they belong—with the people of London through their elected representatives, the Greater London Council. We aim here to give the council all the powers that it needs to carry out its job …
A major difficulty of the London Board in the past has been that its two statutory duties—to pay its way and to provide an adequate system of passenger transport—are so framed as to be difficult to achieve and in practice impossible to reconcile. In the Bill, the overriding duty will be the financing one—to break even and to meet financial objectives set for periods fixed by the Council …
These duties are completely interlocking. What they mean in practical terms is that the Council will be able to decide on the broad standards of service to be provided and will have, in return, the responsibility of ensuring, in one way or another, that the London Transport undertaking remains viable.
I would have quoted the passage that was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness in his opening speech if he had not done so.
The transport spokesman for the Conservative Party at that time was the present Prime Minister, never backward in coming forward if she hears something with which she disagrees. The deputy Conservative spokesman on transport was the present Secretary of State for the Environment, about whom the same could certainly be said. Neither of them, either on Second Reading or in Committee, ever mentioned any disagreement with the

principles set out in those quotations. Indeed, in her speech on Second Reading the present Prime Minister raised some objections to the Bill, but then said:
I do not think anyone will quarrel with the main purpose, although there is often a vast difference between a purpose and a method of achieving it."—[Official Report, 17 December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1244–55.]
The right hon. Lady said that immediately after the Minister of Transport made the remarks to which I have just referred. She took no exception to them. That is indicative of what the House thought it was doing in 1969.
The Bill was to have gone before a Select Committee, but finally it went to a Standing Committee. There was a debate on clause 3, which allowed the Greater London Council to provide grants. The debate was initiated by a present senior Government Whip, the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). He put down an amendment, not to stop the GLC giving revenue grants on a pre-planned basis, but to stop it giving grants for certain quasi-commercial operations.
At the conclusion of that debate the then Minister of Transport said in his defence of the existing text:
First, the Greater London Council is an elected body, and one of its prime responsibilities is to safeguard ratepayers' money and to determine how it should be used. That is what local government is about, and there is no obligation on the GLC to spend its rates in any way that it does not wish to do, but if a democratically elected local authority decides that it wishes to spend its rates in a particular way for the benefit of its electors it is a rather unconstitutional theory that Parliament should tell the authority that Parliament knows best.
The same might be true of the House of Lords. I am not sure that Parliament always knows better than local authorities, and I am certainly not sure that the Law Lords do.
What was the response? I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Southgate was on the Opposition Front Bench at that time. If he was not, the Front Bench was silent on the matter. He said:
I thank the Minister for his reply. The debate has been useful in getting these points clear, and I agree that it is right for a democratically elected council, whether of London or elsewhere to use its money in the way that it wants."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 1969; c. 48.]
In 1969 the action that had been taken by the GLC, whether one agrees with it or not, was intended to be within the law.
On the issue of the Lords misreading the intention of Parliament, on pages 9–11 of the photostat version of the report, Lord Wilberforce recites previous statutes for non-London transport authorities that mention a power to precept for grants towards revenue. He said that there was no reason to suppose that Parliament intended the same power for London in a subsequent Bill that did not use the same words. First, it is fundamentally silly to suppose that Parliament would not have intended the same for London. Secondly, on Second Reading of the Bill the then Minister of Transport, uncontested by the Conservative Opposition at that time, said:
For the conurbations outside London our policies have been given effect to in the passenger transport authorities which are being set up under the Transport Act 1968. In London we need to go further, and we are able to go further."—[Official Report, 17 December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1243.]
Wilberforce got it wrong on that point, too. He is not allowed to read Hansard, or if he does he is not allowed to take account of it. I agree that that is correct court practice, but it leaves us with a problem. We know, even if the Lords did not know, that the decision that they reached is not the law that we thought we were passing and


which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment thought they were passing in 1969. We cannot allow that position to continue.
With respect, we have a poor quality judgment by any standards, largely invoking ordinary business principles that are not ordinary in relation to public transport undertakings anywhere in the world. It leaves a completely obscure position. By three to two the Law Lords, appear to be against pre-planned subsidies for rates, but they might have been two or three if there had been no loss of rate support grant. Clearly they have misunderstood the intentions of Parliament, according to the quotations that I have read out. We must declare the law, one way or the other, so that that obscurity is not perpetuated.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you tell the House at what time we are due to complete the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall conclude the debate three hours after 4.44 pm—at 7.44 pm. It may be of assistance to the House to know that the Solicitor-General will speak for only five minutes now, which will be deducted from the time of the other Government Front Bench speaker, who will speak for 15 minutes, and the Opposition Front Bench spokesman will speak for 20 minutes.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): First, may I apologise to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), in his absence, for my absence during his speech. May I also assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that I shall not indulge in any preamble on this occasion.
From what I have heard and what has been reported to me, it seems that there is one question that has been vexing the House and upon which I might be able to give more assistance now. That is: where are people left after this judgment? What, if anything, can the Greater London Council do by way of making grants for revenue purposes without putting itself in peril of the law?
Having myself followed the advice which I gave on Friday to study the judgment more closely, I think that I can assist a little more. I respectfully think that a number of the questions which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) referred are quite clearly dealt with. I shall refer hon. Members to one or two passages in one or two of the speeches. I shall do so quickly, because I do not want to take up time, in the hope that hon. Members will find them reassuring when they look at them later.
On the question of section 3, I would draw the attention of the House to page 4 of the photostat of the speech of Lord Wilberforce, where he says:
Section 3 gives the GLC power to make grants to the Executive 'for any purpose' and no doubt these words are wide enough to cover grants to revenue as well as for capital purposes.
Lord Wilberforce then goes on to express in general terms some of the context against which that has to be considered. I shall not take time on that part of the matter.
I would, however, draw attention to the fact that Lord Wilberforce goes a lot further than that. He then goes on to examine the various relevant provisions of the statute. As I have said before, that can be very boring for any of

us, but it has to be done when the court is faced with interpreting such provisions. What is more interesting perhaps is what conclusions were reached after doing that.
In brief and in lay terms, the guidance given was this. The London Transport Executive, said his Lordship, has a statutory duty to ensure, so far as is practicable, that its revenue in any accounting period balances with its expenditure, so that it does not run up a deficit. If in any accounting period it runs up a deficit, it has prima facie a duty to make good that deficit in the next accounting period. It did not take a lawyer to see that that was what section 7(3) was saying. Whatever some people may have intended, that is what was before Parliament and passed by it. The sense of it is obvious. The London Transport Executive must endeavour to run on businesslike lines. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will bear with me. I am doing my best to assist, and to do it in the minimum time. That entails perhaps taking the matter less fully than I should like to take it, but I am trying to balance all the considerations.
Neither the duty to balance the books in any particular period nor the duty to make up the deficit in the next period is absolute. Both are subject to the condition
as far as is practicable".
That is a most important provision. It gives great flexibility. If I were not on my feet, someone might be saying "What if it is not practicable for the LTE to do that? What is to be done then? If it is practicable, so be it; that is fine. The important question is: what, then, is to be done if it is not practicable for the LTE to balance its books?
Lord Wilberforce went on to point out that the answer to those questions is to be found in the corresponding obligation—not merely power, but obligation—of the GLC under section 7(6), to have regard to those duties of the LTE—to balance its books so far as is practicable—and to take action which will enable the executive to comply with those duties and requirements.
I refer the House to page 10 of the speech of Lord Wilberforce, where his Lordship said:
Such actions might take several forms: the Council might direct fares to be raised or services to be adjusted. Or the Council could decide to make a grant.
This was to make up the deficit, which it was not practicable for the LTE to finance itself.
His lordship then went on to qualify that by saying:
But it can only do that after it has 'had regard" to the Executive's duty under section 7(3)"—
that is to say, the duty of the Executive to do its best to ensure stability. He continued:
The respective statutory obligations of the GLC and London Transport Executive fit in with one another: the London Transport Executive must carry out its duty as defined in section 7(3): the GLC cannot exercise its powers unless and until the London Transport Executive carries out that duty".
Then it can do so, only it must also do so
with proper regard to its fiduciary duty".
The guidance does not stop there. Lord Wilberforce also referred to the budget proposed by the LIE in November 1980, and it is well worth looking at that part of his speech, which is on page 12, where his Lordship said:
Acting, as I am willing to accept, in accordance with their obligations under the 1969 Act
the LTE—which was then running a deficit—
submitted to the GLC, in November 1980, proposals to achieve a break-even by a possible increase in fare revenue, increased productivity, and an assumed GLC grant of £80 million.'
What was being said in the budget was "We will raise the fares; we will increase productivity; that is as far as


it is practicable for us to go and we will need an assumed grant of £80 million from the GLC." His Lordship is saying here that he is "willing to accept" that it was within the powers and duties of the LTE to put forward such proposals and that the GLC could accede to them and pay that grant.
His Lordship continued:
Its budget contains a careful review of the measures taken, by way of economy and better fare collection, to keep the deficit down as far as practicable. Obviously this was not the only possible budget at the time, but in its preparation and structure it represents a serious attempt to comply with the Act.
What Lord Wilberforce is saying is "Here is a budget presented which represents a serious attempt by the LTE to comply with its duties to ensure that the books balance as far is practicable". Once the GLC is satisfied as to that, it is open to it—in fact it has a duty—to take steps to deal with the problems that that presents. It can do that either by putting forward proposals for fare increases or otherwise, or, as I have quoted, by making a grant for revenue purposes.
That is a very hurried exposition of, and drawing of hon. Members' attention to some of, the guidance to be found in the speeches in this case. Of course, there are grey areas. But there is a further principle which is relevant and is clearly reflected in the speeches. It is well known that a court will not interfere in cases such as this, save in cases in which the mark, wherever it comes, has been very clearly overstepped. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to utter such expressions; but I am telling the House that that is my experience as one who has tried to get a court to rule that a discretion has not been properly exercised. Others may have different experiences, but let us base our views upon the experiences in court.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have tried to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. I know that he is seeking to be as helpful as possible. However, having read the judgment, I find that there are so many grey areas that considerable clarification is required if a local authority is to plan with any degree of certainty. Is not the essential rationale here that a local authority running a transport service is, in effect, required to endeavour to break even, and is not the logical consequence of that that it is required, therefore, substantially to increase its fares in order to achieve that? Futhermore, is it not in total defiance of the experience of some many other countries and cities which have been cited by hon. Members during the debate?

The Solicitor-General: I am seeking to advise the House on the guidance available to the GLC and nobody else, for this Act and this case refer only to the GLC. The LTE is the instrument to implement the policy of the GLC. I take them to be the same thing, or the two arms of the same thing. We are dealing only with the problems facing the LTE and the GLC in budgeting and the extent to which they can budget for a grant for revenue purposes.
It is for the House to say whether what they can do is adequate. My point is that there is considerable guidance as to the way in which the matter can and should be approached by those who have the responsibility of deciding these matters.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that it is open to the GLC and the LTE combined to pursue some sort of fares reduction policy, or is he saying that any fares reduction policy which reduces the deficit on the balance of the accounts is unlawful?

The Solicitor-General: The two questions are not mutually exclusive. It is open to the LTE and the GLC to consider whether on the one hand, a reduction of fares might increase the use of the system and of the revenue or whether, on the other hand, an increase in the fares might reduce the use of the system and the revenue. These may be relevant questions when deciding whether, as a practical matter, the LTE can balance its books, or ought to budget for a deficit to be made up by grant. [Interruption.] That is what Lord Wilberforce said in the passage to which I directed the attention of the House. He was speaking about the budget put forward in 1980. That budget included provision for an assumed—not an actual—grant of £80 million.
The position in which the GLC finds itself is, in short, this. The LTE must put forward a budget which ensures, as far as it can as far as is practicable, that it will balance its books. If there has clearly been a serious attempt to do that but it appears not to be practicable, the GLC may make a grant for revenue purposes. I suggest to the House that there is, in fact, plenty of guidance in the speeches of their Lordships as to the position of the GLC faced with the problem which is taxing hon. Gentlemen so much.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

The Solicitor-General: I do not think that I ought to give way again because I have taken much more of the time of the House than I intended, and I do not wish to take any more.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Wetherill): Has the Solicitor-General finished his speech?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Most people in London live not in the law courts—indeed, most of them do not even make their living there—but in houses and flats, and they travel to and from work on the roads, the railways or the Underground. The object of the debate is to try to help them to recover from the chaos created by the House of Lords decision in the case brought by Bromley council against the GLC.
The decision has created chaos in the finances of London Transport. We now have to avoid making London's transport system as chaotic as the contradictory judgments of the five Law Lords which have been so admirably spelt out by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), whose speech was not acknowledged by the Solicitor-General. I sympathise with the Solicitor-General in his task of trying to explain to the House what the five Law Lords decided because, as they all decided different things, he had a difficult task to perform in five minutes.
In the run-up to the GLC elections in May 1981, there was much consultation by the Labour group and the Labour Party in London about the reduced fares policy. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who denounced the policy as a


Marxist activity I point out that the two Labour councillors who decamped to the SDP supported the policy all along and voted for it on all occasions. That is another aspect of policy that the SDP might seek to clarify during the next decade.
The policy of fares reduction in London was the main item in the GLC election campaign, with the exception of the "red scare" run by The Standard against the leadership of the Labour group. I am convinced that was the main reason why people in London decided that they wanted a Labour-controlled GLC. That is why Labour won the election. Now, however, the House of Lords decision has set aside that election result as if it had never been. That is similar to the pools panel deciding the outcome not of games which had not been played but of games which had been played, and that, in this instance, it was a Tory, not a Labour, win. We cannot face that prospect in London because it will be so damaging.
The GLC has always acted in good faith. I hope that no one on the Tory Benches will suggest that the Labour group on the GLC has done other than act in good faith in the belief that it was fulfilling an election pledge and not breaking the law in so doing. Until the Bromley council brought this action, no one had suggested, in any way or at any stage, that what the GLC wanted to do was illegal.
From time to time, Governments propose retrospective legislation, which is denounced by nearly every hon. Member. However, the House of Lords decision is retrospective legislation. The law has clearly been changed by the five contradictory judgments in the House of Lords. Now, instead of objecting to retrospective legislation, we are expected to applaud the brilliance of their legal insight. I cannot go along with that applause.
The House of Lords decision fails to reflect the changes in attitudes and circumstances which have arisen over the last 20 years in relation to the subsidy of public transport. An odd quirk of British law is that the common law appears to be based on attitudes of mind which were developed towards the end of the eighteenth century. Unless Parliament sets judgments aside and lays down statute law contrary to common law, the judges will apply old-fashioned attitudes to every situation before them. There is nothing in the common law which calls upon judges to bring themselves up-to-date in their attitudes and responses.
In the GLC case, the Law Lords placed great weight on a judgment in 1955 in a case affecting the Birmingham corporation. Then, in their usual illiberal way, the courts decided that it was illegal, contrary to the law, wrong, shocking, hideous, monstrous and likely to bring down the State if Birmingham corporation allowed free travel or concessionary fares for pensioners.
Parliament has since put right that loony judgment by the courts, and concessionary fares for pensioners are legal throughout the land. I hope that example will be followed on this occasion. It is clear that the law that everybody thought existed—until the Law Lords decided that it did not—was eminently sensible and acceptable. It was the law that everyone accepted and to which apparently such a competent person as the Prime Minister had not objected when it went through the House when she was the leading transport spokesman for the Tory Opposition.
We need a recognition by the Government—just as there was a recognition following the 1955 judgment in Birmingham—that the law needs to be changed so that we

can establish a proper balance between the income from fares, support from rates and support from central Government.
There are items for clarification with which I hope the Under-Secretary of State will deal in his reply. There is the bizarre question whether, in striking down the supplementary rate for London Transport, the Law Lords struck down that part of the supplementary rate in inner London which referred to the needs of the Inner London Education Authority. Common sense suggests that, as Bromley council did not get that part of the supplementary rate, the judgment in its case would not strike down the ILEA rate. I am talking common sense and the Law Lords are talking law, so that may not be the case.
The fare reductions and improvements in standards by London Transport contributed £69 million towards the total supplementary rate. Government penalties for such action amounted to a withdrawal of £111 million, which was practically half the supplementary rate, resulting in the Government taking away money that they had previously promised. The people of London need to know whether the rate support grant which was clawed back will now be unclawed or clawed forward—or whatever is done with a clawback when it is put into reverse. In other words, if the fares are increased, will the clawback be restored or will the Government hang on to their ill-gotten gains?
London Transport inherited a £48 million deficit from the previous Tory-controlled GLC. I find it nothing short of bizarre to read in at least two of the Law Lords' judgments that they thought that the procedures followed by the previous GLC and the previous LTE in setting the budget were wholly admirable. The Law Lords then spent their time saying that the main object of the LTE must be to avoid a deficit. Yet, this admirable budget-making process resulted in a deficit of £48 million. I do not know where that leaves the Law Lords or the £48 million.
We need some sensible answers from the Under-Secretary compared with the ridiculous contribution that we had from the Secretary of State and the not very helpful contribution from the Solicitor-General. The Secretary of State for Transport said:
It is worth making it clear that the fares increase necessary in London Transport to bring back fares in real terms to the 1980–81 level is about 60 per cent.".—[Official Report, 18 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 555.]
That was not true, because it left out the £48 million deficit. It also left out other aspects of the expenses of London Transport which have arisen since the 1980–81 budget was established by the previous regime.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The figure given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the increase necessary to take fares back to the level of fares in real terms following the increase in September 1980. That is all that the figure means, and that is what my right hon. Friend said it meant.

Mr. Dobson: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman said it in a very misleading way. He has repeated it several times and his hon. Friends have repeated it outside the House. The clear impression created by the statements from the Government Front Bench and by press notices from the Department of Transport has been that a 60 per cent. increase, and only a 60 per cent. increase, is needed to rectify the problem. That is wholly false, and the Under-Secretary of State knows it.
The further point that the right hon. Gentleman made in his contribution on Friday was that there had been a substantial increase in costs in London Transport following policy decisions by the GLC, and that there had been an increase in costs of operation and a reduction in efficiency. As far as we can understand, the right hon. Gentleman was referring to a pay settlement and to the recruitment of staff.
The GLC decided that the LTE should recruit staff not up to but approaching levels which would be capable of providing the service advertised by Sir Horace Cutler, who had been deceiving everybody all along and who ought to be carted off and clapped into gaol for misrepresentation and various other consumer-type offences.
The GLC recruited staff to try to take the levels of service up to the levels that had been advertised by Sir Horace. It recruited 105 bus drivers, 161 bus engineers, 111 trainees, 39 trainmen, 56 tube engineers, 72 railway police—no doubt as part of the negotiations for reducing vandalism and the threat to passengers on London Transport—and 24 miscellaneous staff. I regret to say that no lawyers or merchant bankers appear to be included in the list of those who are to provide a decent service to enable Londoners to get about. The people who have been recruited are those who are needed if London Transport is to improve its efficiency.
It is nothing short of scurrilous abuse by the Secretary of State to suggest that the recruitment of such people reduces efficiency. He said that those people have been recruited to meet a need that does not exist. In other words, in future he will decide the needs of transport in London. I suggest that at the last GLC election the people of London made it clear that they thought that there was a need for a better and cheaper transport system in London.

Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman says that the people of London made clear their views, but he should think again. Only about 40 per cent. of the electorate of London could be bothered to vote. Of that number, 41 per cent. voted Conservative and 39 per cent. voted Labour. Of those who voted, very few understood what they were voting for.

Mr. Dobson: To use a lawyer's tag, I reckon that in elections silence betokens consent. If 60 per cent. of the people did not vote, they obviously knew that the Labour Party would win. Therefore, they were satisfied with the prospect of Labour winning and thereafter reducing the fares and improving the service.
I turn to a matter about which the Under-Secretary of State misled the House. It was very uncharacteristic of him to do so. He said:
As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise, pensioners in London got nothing from Ken Livingstone, because they already had free fares."—[Official Report, 18 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 562.]
That was not true. The fares on the Underground were reduced to nothing for pensioners, as part of the very first package that the Labour-controlled GLC, under Mr. Livingstone, introduced in June last year.
There is a lesson there for us all. It is that there has been far too much personalising of the issue. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out, this is a clear commitment. There is nothing novel or radical about it. It is just a sensible idea.
The future of transport in London is at stake. Are we to have a system that is efficient, that makes economic use of fuel, that avoids traffic congestion and that will get Londoners about, even if they cannot afford cars? That question must be answered. We need a contribution from taxation comparable with that provided by the GLC in rate support. We must not lose the opportunity to return to the situation that existed before the Law Lords' judgment. I hope that the Government will recognise that London's transport commands and demands a much greater central Government contribution than at present if the system is to be a credit to the capital and is to get our people about. The Government must quickly decide who will get the money back and who will bear the cost of the problems that have arisen as a result of the judgment. I am sure that the five ratepayers in the other place will not do so.
The Government must take declaratory action or change the law to ensure that such a situation cannot be repeated. We do not want to indulge in stupid political bandying about and personalities. Such activities have bedevilled the debate for the last six months. All hon. Members should recognise that Londoners are extremely concerned about the future of their transport system. They decided that they wanted lower fares, a more efficient system and a higher level of service. Five Law Lords have not got the right to "undecide" that for them. The Government are under an obligation to put the situation right and to make a substantially greater central Government contribution—as is done in many of the world's major cities and in many parts of the United Kingdom—towards the running costs of the public passenger transport system.

Mr. Roger Sims: In the past few days—both in the House and in the media—the debate has been portrayed in various ways. We have just heard another interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson). The debate has been presented as the little Conservative Bromley versus the mighty Labour-controlled GLC, as the Tory Government versus Livingstone and company, and even, because the other place is also the highest Court of Appeal, as another example of Lords versus the people.
The debate is nothing of the sort. Far from criticising the law, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South did, I applaud it. The law has done exactly what it should do and protected the individual. The Government have enormous powers over local government. The State, in the form of central and local government, has powers over the individual, but the individual's ultimate protection is the law.
We know that Governments and local authorities are elected democratically. After four or five years the party in power is re-elected or thrown out. We also know that, given a working majority, those in power have a relatively free hand once in office. However, they are not omnipotent and are constrained by the law. The individual can turn to the law if he feels that the State is abusing his rights and if a local authority abuses its powers. That is what happened in this case.
I place on record my admiration for my colleagues—the leader of the council of the London borough of Bromley and his two fellow councillors—who had the courage to initiate the legal action under discussion. They did so with little support from other London boroughs or from quarters


from which they might reasonably have expected support. Their motive was not to do down the GLC or to score party points, but to act on behalf of those whom they represent—a quarter of whom are my constituents—who were suddenly faced with a supplementary rate.
The GLC precepted the London borough of Bromley and the borough had to collect the rate, and with it the odium for doing so. Typically, the amount of the supplementary rate was about £50. However, £50 was the rate for the half-year and therefore people had to pay, not £1 a week, but £2 a week. The supplementary rate was demanded of pensioners, although many of them had free travel passes and gained no benefit from the reduced fares policy. Nevertheless, they had to pay the higher rates. The supplementary rate was demanded of the commuter who, in South London, has no tube service by which to take advantage of lower fares. The rate supplement was also demanded of the business man. There are several business men in my constituency who pay 62 per cent. of the rate, but who have no vote. They faced a supplementary rate that had a crippling—if not fatal—effect on their enterprises.
For what was the supplementary rate demanded? It was demanded to give overseas tourists cheap fares and to pay for those working in, or visiting, London, but who live outside it and who do not, therefore, pay GLC rates. To my constituents London Transport's slogan "Fares Fair" has a hollow ring. The policy is anything but fair.
The councillors' initiative has paid off not only by establishing that the GLC's action was illegal but by highlighting the important principle that, in the words of Lord Wilberforce, the GLC
owes a duty of a fiduciary character to its ratepayers who have to provide the money.
That is an extremely important principle and one that could well be applied to other local authorities.
The GLC deliberately reduced fares by 25 per cent. knowing that the deficit incurred would have to be met by the ratepayers and that as a result of its action it would forfeit a Government grant of about £50 million, which ratepayers would have to pay. In the words of Lord Diplock, that action was
a thriftless use of monies obtained by the GLC from ratepayers and a deliberate failure to deploy to the best advantage the full financial resources available to it".
What an indictment! That judgment and that of Lord Diplock's fellow judges make it clear that the GLC has the power to make grants. However, it also establishes beyond doubt that the GLC and other authorities must take account of their responsibilities towards ratepayers. To use a legal expression, they must consider their fiduciary duty to ratepayers. I accept that the judgment may well lead to the need to reappraise and restate transport policy. I suspect that it will open the door and that some of the more exotic expenditure of some local authorities will be queried. The judgment also puts the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to restrain local authority expenditure into an interesting new light.
There will be at least one beneficiary—the ratepayer. His position is now much more carefully safeguarded than it was before the judgment. For that, my constituents and many millions of others will thank their Lordships for their statement of the law, and will thank also Councillors Barkway, Randall and Reading for their bold and successful initiative.

7 pm

Mr. Eric Deakins: Not being a lawyer, I am not concerned—as are other hon. Members—with examining the entrails of their Lordships' decision, although I read the judgment with interest. I was impressed with the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I take issue with their Lordships on the considerations that they did not bring to bear in their judgment: first, the wider social and political implications; and, second—a point that has not yet been raised in the debate—the balance not: only between ratepayers and farepayers but between public and private transport in our great capital city. There is no mention of those considerations in the 80 or 90 pages of judgment. Their Lordships obviously felt precluded from dealing with them.
While their Lordships cannot consider social and political considerations in giving such a judgment, we and the Government, as politicians, are not precluded from doing so. We should address our minds to that matter rather than poring over the judgment and saying that it means this or that. Its meaning for the GLC is pretty evident. We know from Sir Peter Masefield and the GLC what the probable consequences of the judgment will be for London Transport and Londoners. I shall list them briefly.
There will be fares increases on buses and on the Underground in March—or a little later if that is phased—of 150 per cent.; a reduction in the service and of between 30 and 40 per cent. in Greater London; a 40 per cent. loss of passengers as a consequence of the fares increases and the reduction in services; the permanent closure of about 20 Underground stations; the dismantling of 10 per cent. of the bus routes in Greater London; and, last but not least, redundancies of up to 25 per cent.—that is, 15,000 employees of London Transport.
Faced with those serious consequences—the Minister cannot deny that they are serious—why cannot the Government come clean and say that they will do what many speakers have urged, and put back the law by amending legislation to where everyone thought it was? If they do not do that the people of London, especially those who travel by public transport, will know where to place the blame.
The effect of cuts in services will be dramatic, especially on bus routes. Many bus routes, even under the new dispensation, run bad services. Every Member of Parliament will know of such cases in his constituency. In mine, bus routes on Forest Road and Black Horse Lane are bad and will become worse unless the Government take action to avoid the consequences that will result from their Lordships' decision.
The rises in fares will be catastrophic. It is one thing to tell people by advertising "Hop on a bus and travel one mile for 10p", but quite another to say "Hop on a bus for a mile at a cost of 20p or 25p". We all know what will happen. Many people will not use buses for short distances—yet that is where the bulk of passenger usage lies. It will not effect pensioners with free bus passes, but what about those living on social security, especially the young unemployed? It will reduce mobility in London, as fares will have to rise drastically, especially for shorter journeys. Does the Minister want those consequences? If


he does not, is he still prepared to do nothing about them by way of amending legislation? That is the key question; not what it is not legal for the GLC to do.
In the absence of definitive legal advice—I confess that I was not impressed by the advice of the Solicitor-General—London Transport and the GLC will have to operate on the basis of trying to break even, with all the consequences that I have described. The Secretary of State, in a rather bland and dreary speech, gave us little information about the Government's intentions. Does the Minister think that his right hon. Friend will go down in parliamentary history as a modern Marie Antoinette? Will he tell the people "If there is no bus, if the service is so bad that you have to wait for an hour, or if you cannot afford the fare, travel by car"? That would be a dereliction of the right hon. Gentleman's duty, as he is the Minister for all transport, not simply for private transport.
The Government must try to maintain a balance between public and private transport for social, economic, and energy saving reasons. The decision will lead to more cars on London's roads, which will clog up the traffic. It will reduce the road network available for the distribution of goods, which will raise costs to industry and commerce.
Another effect will be to add to the cost of living and the inflation rate, which the Government are trying to reduce. All those consequences will flow from their Lordships' judgment and the assumption that the Government are not prepared to take action through amending legislation. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. When London Transport and the GLC publish the fares increases, will he be so smug then about his attitude and that of his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am shaking my head because the hon. Gentleman has no evidence to support any of his horrendous forecasts about the consequences of the judgment. Surely he can remember the period prior to May 1981, when there was no doubt about the legal position or anything else. It is not true that London will be bereft of public transport as a result of the judgment.

Mr. Deakins: The Minister's words will go on the record and, in due course, we shall see who is right. I rest my case on the evidence given to London Labour Members by the GLC, based on estimates given to London Transport following the judgment of the Court of Appeal. If we and the London Transport Executive are right about the consequences, is the Minister prepared to say "I shall do nothing to redress the burden that will fall on the whole of London as the result of the inactivity of the Government in not helping the GLC to cope with the consequences of their Lordships' decision"? To those—and there are many of them—who glory in and gloat over the decision, I say that they have not yet seen the consequences that will flow from the judgement. They all have constituents who not only pay rates but use public transport.
I end with a word of warning that Horace Walpole gave to the nation and the House in 1739 at the start of the stupid war called "The War of Jenkin's Ear", when he said
They may ring their bells now; before long they will be wringing their hands.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I listened with great interest to the quotation by the hon. Member for Waltham

Forest (Mr. Deakins) of the words of Horace Walpole, who was resident in my constituency at Strawberry Hill, Twickenham. He would have deplored the policy of the GLC as a monstrous injustice to ratepayers, because he was a fair-minded man. That injustice has been put right by the House of Lords.
My constituency is on the fringe of Greater London. It has no Underground station within its boundaries, but it has eight British Rail stations. Those stations all lead to Waterloo. Although they connect with the Underground at places such as Wimbledon and Richmond, to change over is inconvenient and often involves extending the journey from 25 minutes to 50 or 60 minutes. My constituents cannot be expected to do that when commuting merely to take advantage of a subsidy which is on a capricious geographical basis because of the uneven pattern of the distribution of Underground lines within Greater London.
It is a historical and geographical fact that on the south and south-west side of London there is a full network of suburban British Rail lines. There are over 100 such British Rail Southern region stations; whereas the Underground is much more developed in other directions to the east, north and west of central London. Therefore my constituents cannot take advantage of the subsidy to the London Underground in the same way as inhabitants of places such as Ealing, Hendon, and others roughly the same distance from central London but at different points of the compass. That is unjust and completely capricious. As the Greater London Council took no notice of that particular injustice, I am glad that the House of Lords, as the highest court in the land, acted in the interest of fairness.

Mr. Peter Archer: This debate is about a limited range of issues. It is not about what transport policy should be, nor is it about the merits of the judgment in question. It was a judgment that surprised many people, and no doubt it will be subjected to a great deal of academic analysis in learned journals. But this is not an academic debate and the construction placed on the statute by their lordships is not at issue in the House.
The reason for the debate is that the judgment has given rise to real problems for those who have to keep London Transport operating. It is not only they who are placed at risk, but those who depend in their daily lives on the services operated by London Transport.
The Secretary of State urged the House to take the situation calmly. Our anxieties arise from the fact that he appears to be taking it too calmly. It is easy to bear other people's problems with fortitude. Someone once said, "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you have not grasped the situation."
Four questions emerge from this debate. First, as I understand it, at least four of their lordships took the view that the London Transport Executive must try, so far as is practicable, to balance its books, taking one period with another, and that it should try to do so without grant-in-aid from the GLC. In other words, it should be run on what are called business lines, generating income from fares as far as possible.
It is true, as the Solicitor-General told us, that the London Transport Executive may budget for a shortfall, but only if it is not practicable to achieve that balance. The Greater London Council has power to make a grant in aid, including a grant towards revenue, but it may do so only


when it is satisfied that the London Transport Executive cannot otherwise achieve the balance. In other words, no one has the power under the present law to decide that fares should be subsidised from rates as a deliberate policy. That is what is at issue.
It is singularly unsatisfactory for the Secretary of State to say that the present legislation has worked so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) said that various authorities had operated within their powers as they believed them to be and they had not been challenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) said that the decision came as a surprise to many who thought that they were operating within their powers. Now the practice has been challenged and it transpires that the discretion is substantially narrower than many believed it to be. My understanding is that no one has power to decide as a policy that fares should be subsidised from rates.
I could quote extensively from the speeches of their Lordships, but time is short and that is exactly how the Solicitor-General advised the House. I do not seek to improve on the way that the case was put in The Times leader on Friday. It said:
Neither the council nor the executive has authority to go for a deficit as an objective of policy.
So, so far as possible, London Transport should be run on lines that ensure that passengers pay for the cost of the service, as though it were privately operated but without the profit element.
That is what the present law requires. That is a possible view on the merits. Clearly it is a view which is held by some hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. Clearly, too, it is a view which can be held sincerely and in good faith. But I hope that Conservative Members will accept that the contrary view may also be held sincerely and in good faith.
The difference between the two views is a political one. It is a difference which should be decided by taking account of the considerations urged so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). Surely it is a decision which should be resolved by the political process. It is a matter to be decided by electors through their elected representatives. It is a classic example of a question that should be decided at county level rather than national level, because conditions differ from county to county. It is county representatives who are closely in touch with those conditions. In any particular county a debate may take into account all the considerations which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) urged, a debate on whether, as a matter of policy, public transport undertakings should budget on the basis of a subsidy and whether local county councils should provide the subsidy.
It is a matter which in a democracy should surely be laid before the electors. I do not argue that every item in a manifesto is completely binding, even when there has been a change of circumstances, but, as Lord Diplock observed, it is a matter to which the representatives should give considerable weight.
The problem which emerges from the judgment is that no one has power to take such a decision, even if the electors approve the scheme and even if the councillors believe that in all the circumstances it is the right course. Surely the law should be adapted to confer power to take the decision if it appears to be the right decision in all the circumstances.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the law, as laid down by the Law Lords, prohibits the adoption of a general subsidy policy even when it is in the interests of the ratepayers of a certain area? In other words, even if the discretion is exercised to have regard to the ratepayers' interests, councillors will still not be allowed to operate a general subsidy policy. The only way to alter that prohibition is to introduce new legislation if that is what is wanted.

Mr. Archer: I agree that that appears to be the position in London. That is the effect of the judgment.
The present law states that no one has power to adopt a policy other than one which tries to meet income requirements fron fares. That is a possible view on the political merits, but I doubt whether it is one that is widely held. It is not the view that is taken in most countries which operate similar public transport undertakings. Many people would adopt the view expressed in the leader which appeared in The Times on Friday, that the power of positive subsidy is certainly a power that a modern urban transport authority should have. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and my former hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) observed, it was not the view of either side of the House when the Bill that became the 1969 Act was debated. And we have it from the Secretary of State that it is not his view either.
On Friday the right hon. Gentleman expressed the opinion that grant support should be available for public transport authorities, provided that it was not taken to "ridiculous extremes". That was at column 554 of Hansard for 18 December. What is a ridiculous extreme is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for 13arrow-inFumes said, a matter for political debate, but that is the Secretary of State's view about the degree of help which it should be open to give from rates. That certainly is not in accordance with the present law as it was declared by their Lordships, so, on the Secretary of State's own view of what should, on the merits, be an option, there is a need for a change in the law.
The question that the Opposition are asking is whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give effect to his own view. It clearly has not escaped him that similar questions may arise on other legislation for county councils in the province, including the county council dear to the hearts of the Under-Secretary of State and myself, the West Midlands. My right hon. Friend asked whether the Secretary of State had been advised that similar problems would arise in relation to provincial legislation. Those authorities are entitled to know where they stand, without further prolonged litigation.
The second matter which appears to arise from the debate seems to me to be this. The Judicial Committee decided that this supplementary precept was unlawful. I understood from the speech of Lord Scarman—this did not surprise me—that it had been agreed among all the parties that in that event the whole of the supplementary precept must be quashed, including not only the £64 million part of it which is intended to balance revenue in the future, but the £6 million intended to pay for improved services, and the £48 million intended to pay for the previous deficit, which accumulated while the Greater London


Council was under Conservative control—not to mention the £111 million brought about by the actions of the Secretary of State himself.
The GLC is free to consider levying a further supplementary precept which would not be open to the objections discussed in the litigation. It may wish to provide for improved services; it may wish to meet the previous deficit. All these are what the Solicitor-General described as the grey areas.
It is not clear from their Lordships' speeches whether a precept which contained an element in respect of any or all of those objectives would be lawful. That is not a criticism of their Lordships. It is not the function of the courts to decide questions which are not before them. They cannot give precise guidance on the whole extent of the powers of the London Transport Executive or the GLC. That is the legislature's task.
Now that the situation has arisen, it is for the Government to formulate legislation designed to answer those questions. The alternative is for the GLC to expose itself to a whole series of legal actions, as it levies precept after precept in order to obtain rulings on the legality of various course of action. That might be very good news for the legal profession, but it is the Government's duty to try to resolve those issues.
I come to the third question. It happens from time to time, as happened in this case, that members of a public authority proceed on an honest but mistaken view of their powers. That means that various people may have inadvertently subjected themselves to penalties and liabilities. Unless the House were prepared in those circumstances, and irrespective of party politics, to relieve them of those penalties and liabilities, public life would become a minefield which only the richest could ever afford to enter. So I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us whether the Government have considered whether indemnifying legislation would be necessary.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have sought on no fewer than three occasions to elicit some sensible observations on this matter from Ministers—so far to no avail. When the Secretary of State for Social Services was in some difficulties following a High Court judgment, when the court found that his direction in respect of an area health authority was invalid, the Government immediately sought indemnity legislation for him. Is it consistent with that attitude for the Government not to be absolutely explicit in the present situation, when the Under-Secretary himself says that nobody deliberately broke the law?

Mr. Archer: Not for the first time, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. In my view it would be inconsistent if the Government were not prepared to introduce such indemnifying legislation as might be necessary. Let us hope. I am an optimist. The Government have not yet said that they are not prepared to do so. I should say in fairness that perhaps they have not yet had time fully to consider the details of the matter. We were in Government once and no doubt we shall be in Government again very shortly. I believe that the House would welcome an assurance, which the Government can reasonably be asked to give today, that they will seek to ensure that no one suffers from having acted in good faith to implement political opinions which they believed at the time they were entitled to hold.

Mr. Higgins: Is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's understanding that the GLC took legal advice before it proceeded on this action?

Mr. Archer: I am told that it did. If the Government wish further details, they can be supplied.
I come to another question, which the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised and which is the fourth of my questions. Perfectly sensibly, because life cannot stand still, some authorities have tried to collect the amount of the precept, and some ratepayers have paid the whole or part of it. It is clear from the judgment that they were under no obligation to pay it. I assume that all the authorities concerned will wish to refund money which has been repaid mistakenly. However, a problem occurs to me, although I confess that I have not had time to research it or look into it in detail. As a student I was brought up to believe that money paid under a mistake of fact was recoverable at law, but that money paid under a mistake of law was not. Of course, there is a whole wealth of learning on the topic. I do not propose to embark upon it tonight, partly because time is short and partly because I do not wish to reveal how much law I have forgotten.
I cannot believe that any authority would wish to retain money that has been paid in these circumstances, but if it is not recoverable at law, it may be that it has no authority at law to refund it. If not, it should be authorised to do so. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give the House the benefit of any consideration that the Government have given to that question. As the right hon. Member for Worthing said, many people are understandably anxious about it.
Those are some of our anxieties. I do not believe that anyone could think that they were unreasonable. It is important that the Government should make known their views on these questions at the earliest possible moment. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness applied for this debate.
Of course the various authorities concerned will have to take advice about their position, and of course they may wish to discuss it with the Secretary of State. But, for the purpose of taking that advice, they are entitled to have some indication from the Government of the Government's intentions.
Our anxieties are shared by many of those who have the responsibility for keeping London Transport rolling. They are entitled to look to the Government for sympathy and help. That is true not only of the authorities but of those who in their daily lives depend on the operations of London Transport.
I cannot do better than to commend to the Government the conclusion of a leading article in The Sunday Times last weekend:
More positively, the Lords' decision gives the government an opportunity to show it has learnt an important lesson. To the mounting dismay of its own supporters, it has so far ridden roughshod over local government, seemingly incorrigibly centralising, confrontational and plain arbitrary. By legislating clear transport subsidy powers for councils, it could show that it genuinely respects the principle of democratic local government.
That is all that we are asking for in this debate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has concluded on that note,


I had better make clear the concerns of the Government at the moment and their position before going into the details of the debate.
Contrary to the assertions of some hon. Members, and the newspapers, the Government are obviously anxious that there should be an efficient and effective—cost-effective and low-cost where possible—transport system in London. We are concerned that there should be no confusion either of law or politics which penalises travellers on the London transport system. We are equally concerned about the position of the taxpayer nationally and the ratepayer in London, whose case was most effectively put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). His case was the basis of the successful and commendable action undertaken by Bromley borough council.
The Government are also anxious to see any doubt and confusion in London transport put right as soon as possible and of course, we should like to see London transport turned back from the short-term problems and the immediate financial crisis which seven months of Labour policy from County Hall have achieved. We should like the transport system to be returned to stability as soon as possible.
The Government have no formal powers or legal responsibility for either London Transport or the GLC at the moment. There are no powers which anyone can urge upon us to step in and take over the basic responsibilities of either the GLC or London Transport. Also, we have had no representations from either the GLC or from London Transport to the effect that they need our assistance in any specific way.
As my right hon. Friend said, we have read newspaper reports which indicate that at some stage Mr. Livingstone, as leader of the GLC, will ask to see the Secretary of State. That is all that we know at the moment. My right hon. Friend says that his door is open and that he will discuss matters with the leader of the GLC. If, as the newspaper reports also imply, Mr. Livingstone wishes to ask the Government so to change the law that he can continue his policies unchanged, regardless of the cost to ratepayers, he will know from the Government's policy statements what reaction he is likely to receive. However, if he says that there are difficulties which it would be reasonable for the Government to resolve, my right hon. Friend will of course listen to what he has to say.
The emergency debate has been called for and has taken place although the Government have no legal powers or formal responsibilities, nor have formal representations been made by the GLC or London Transport to the effect that we can help. It is precipitate and far too soon to indicate what we can do.
While the Government have observed with concern for both travellers and ratepayers the unfolding of these difficulties, we have taken one step in line with our general transport policy. The transport supplementary grant settlement was announced on Monday this week as part of our ordinary policy of support for local authority transport. That included an increased settlement of taxpayers' grant for the GLC for revenue support for its buses. We gave Livingstone's council 14 per cent. in cash terms—5 per cent. in real terms—more than Sir Horace Cutler's GLC as a contribution towards revenue support in London. Other than that, we have not been involved. However, we are anxious to discuss with anyone from either the GLC or London Transport who can suggest a way in which the

Government can be involved rather than lecturing the Government about political opinions and policies to which the authority wishes to return.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for clarifying the Government's position which has changed somewhat since the Prime Minister's first congratulations to the London borough of Bromley. Is he saying that he is not ruling out the possibility of introducing legislation in the new year if, after discussions, that seems to him and to those with whom he has discussed these matters the right way to resolve the problem?

Mr. Clarke: Of course, if someone can make out a case which demonstrates that the law is deficient or that the Greater London Council and London Transport are incapable of applying the law to their problems, we shall consider that. But a week after the judgment the first shock horror stories in the newspapers or the more reasoned comments in this debate have not persuaded us that anyone has yet established any basis for rushing into legislation. My right hon. Friend waits to find out whether anyone thinks that there are difficulties and whether the GLC sees any way in which we could help, and, if so, what it would be.
We have not changed our policy otherwise. We welcomed the Bromley decision and the victory on behalf of the ratepayers, at the same time as we reiterated our continued commitment to a reasonable level of revenue support which the taxpayer and ratepayer can afford.
Although the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said that this was not a matter of how we run transport, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) made it clear that his primary concern was about the whole basis of transport policy and fare levels in great cities.
Labour Members and Labour councillors often say that they favour cheap fares, but I know of nobody who in principle favours expensive fares. We all favour cheap fares. The Government favour fares kept down to the lowest level that can be achieved by efficiency, good management, low cost and a reasonable level of revenue support which taxpayers and ratepayers can be expected to afford. That has always been our policy.
What has happened is that one or two of our cities—the most recent, but not the only one, being London—have suddenly gone in for a radical policy of dramatically and deliberately cheap fares far below anything which might attempt to cover costs, and at an ever-mounting cost to the ratepayer. I concede that this is not a new policy invented in London. It was not invented by Ken Livingstone. It is in fact an imitation of a policy invented in South Yorkshire. The people's republic of South Yorkshire embarked upon this policy at ever-mounting cost to the Sheffield ratepayers four or five years ago. Sheffield went in for a dramatically cheap fares policy aimed at achieving the very benefits that Opposition Members have claimed throughout the debate would follow from cheap fares policies. I remind the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness that that policy was fiercely opposed by the Government of which he was a member.
People have talked about penalties being imposed upon local government. The right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers), as Secretary of State for Transport in a Cabinet which included both right hon. Members who


have spoken today, around 1978–79 imposed fierce transport supplementary grant penalties on South Yorkshire because it insisted on following irresponsible cheap fare policies, and he allowed only £1 million of revenue support grant. We have never been so fierce. We do not agree with South Yorkshire but, unlike the Labour Government, we did not think it necessary to penalise the authority. As in London and everywhere else, we gave it a level of revenue support that we believe meets the needs of the area.
The GLC then came in and tried to follow a similar policy in May last year. It is true that it inherited a deficit, but that was over and above the budget that their Lordships made clear had been perfectly lawfully arrived at and which already allowed for some revenue support. Its reaction to what it inherited, despite the fact that fares had not been increased at all since September 1980 and inflation had risen since then, was to reduce fares by 32 per cent. across the board with an indication that there was more to come by way of special concessions later. It also reopened the busmen's pay negotiations, which had already been settled, raised the figure from 8 per cent. to 11 per cent. and gave compensation to them for loss of valued travel concessions, in contrast with the lack of compensation to pensioners who received no increased travel concessions to compensate for their increased rates. It also instructed London Transport to increase its staff and began to increase bus services, regardless of the level of demand.
There has been much argument about whether all this was voted for, whether the GLC's policy was legal and politically wise, and whether people wanted it. In effect, it took over a business that was running reasonably well but had a somewhat worrying deficit, downed the fares, upped the pay, increased the staff and started running more buses. The cost to the ratepayers, which would have been £46 million in 1981–82 if the Conservatives had continued in office, became £259 million under labour, and on Labour's own plans it would have risen to £385 million by 1982–83.
I have no idea where the GLC expected to find that amount of money. Reports that I have read suggest that it promised its allies in the Labour boroughs, who would be facing elections next May, that there would be no rate rises next year. Yet the bills would surely have mounted. Indeed, I think it is possible that for some in the GLC, although not the sillier ones, the House of Lords judgment may have come as a merciful release, enabling them to get back to thinking out exactly where they are going and what is a sensible balance in transport policy in London.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will the Under-Secretary give us a better indication of the Government's thinking up to date? Does it mean that when Mr. Livingstone and Dave Wetzel, the chairman of the transport committee of the GLC, come through the open door to which the Under-Secretary has alluded additional support grants will be negotiable? Have the recently announced levels some reference to the judgment? That is what the House wishes to know.

Mr. Clarke: I will turn to that in the brief time left to me. I conclude on the cheap fares policies—I have no time to develop it—by saying that the argument in South Yorkshire—as it now is in London—was that a cheap fares policy was necessary to reduce congestion, car usage and so on. I refer the House to the research work in South Yorkshire which shows that such beliefs are near mythology and that any compensating reductions in traffic certainly do not justify the enormous costs to the ratepayers.
I also do not have time to deal with the international comparisons, but many of those are false. It is possible to pick out cities where present losses are even more staggering than in London. All cities accept some level of revenue support. For example, France concentrates all its revenue support in Paris, but does not have much in the rest of the country. Making national comparisons, our support to local public transport, as a percentage of national income, is much in line with what is paid in France, and our support is much higher than that paid in, for example, the United States.
Penalties are a matter first for the district auditor to contemplate. The Government believe that it is highly unlikely that any question of penalties will arise in the case. I refer the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West to section 161(3) of the Local Government Act 1962, which protects anyone innocently breaking the law against any possibility of surcharge. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will obviously consider the problem if and when it arises. As with so many similar cases, Opposition Members assert that there are widespread fears—that certain things will happen—but the only people expressing those fears are themselves. We have no intimation that any surcharge will be imposed on anyone.
The Government are constantly asked what the GLC and London Transport should do now. The short answer is that they should face up to their responsibilities. They are assisted in doing that by the clarification of the law by the Law Lords, as explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
The Government have been told that it is not possible to work out a lawful level of subsidy. No one from London Transport or the GLC has told us that, but that is being asserted. Before we can decide the case, the first thing that must happen is that London Transport takes legal advice and, presumably, attempts to draw up a revised budget and fares proposals for submission to the GLC as soon as possible. Again, the GLC must take legal advice, and consider any budget submitted to it, its own policy and its powers. If it cares to study and take advice from the Law Lords, it will be guided in deciding how to strike the balance between fare payers and ratepayers and how to comply with the statutory obligations that Parliament, as recently as 1969, spelt out under the Act which governs them. Only when we have obtained a budget will we know what figures we are talking about.
The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), who explained to me that he could not stay, also repeated the wilder assertions about what is to happen. It is not


being complacent, but sensible, to say that we should wait and see. I know of no evidence to support those assertions. No one pressing for legislation had a clue about what legislation they wanted. Even the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who made the best claims for it, seemed to be asking for the 1969 Act to be amended to allow London Transport to continue, free from any statutory duties which the Act spelt out and free from any fiduciary relationship with the ratepayers, and that is unacceptable. If the Opposition continue to have debates on this subject as frequently as they have recently, perhaps they will clarify what they want us to rush into and to legislate about.
Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the implications for the repayment of supplementary rates. We hope that local councils can sort that out, but if they need any assistance from my right hon. Friend he will consider what help he can give. I am glad to conclude on a favourable note. The gainers are the ratepayers and the majority of the inhabitants of Greater London; the loser is the London Labour Party and it deserves to be.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — Hops Marketing Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I am aware how pressing time is and I shall not detain the House for more than a moment. However, it is right to pay a brief tribute to the work of the Hops Marketing Board and, equally, to offer hop growers the good wishes of the House. In doing that, it is right that I declare an interest. I am the holder of a little-known honour—an award called the Order of the Hop. It is less illustrious than the Order of the Garter, but is none the less welcome. I have also served in a junior capacity on the Hops Marketing Board since before I entered the House.
The board was the first of the agricultural marketing boards to be set up some 50 years ago. In 1930 hop growers were in despair—there was over-production, bankruptcies, and great disarray—but, with the advent of the board, despair gave way to confidence. That led to the brewers getting their hops, constituents getting their beer and hop growers earning a decent living. It would have been far better had we been able to persuade our EEC partners to adopt our system. They have nothing comparable with the efficiency and sophistication of our organisation. However, that was not to be. The Commission stated that our system conflicted with Community law. It made plain that proceedings would be taken against us in the European Court, and hence the Bill before us. No one would have chosen that course, because producers and buyers have been happy with the existing arrangements. Yet we are called on to wind up the system and a board which has been consistently successful over half a century.
Therefore, the least that I can do is to pay tribute to those who devised and operated the scheme. It is a small industry, essentially an English industry, steeped in tradition and demanding the highest skills. I claim that the Hops Marketing Board has done a most remarkable job over the years.
That is not the end of the story. Hop growing will continue. We have more to do this evening than merely stand by the graveside. The Bill gives birth to a new co-operative society. The greatest danger to any marketing organisation is the man outside, but I think that a high proportion of growers wish to join the new set-up. If so, the orderly marketing of hops will continue.
I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who is piloting the measure through the House. It is fitting that a Kentish Member should be doing that. I know that she has taken time to visit some of the hop fields and warehouses. Her Ministry has been helpful in arranging the difficult transition, and I know that she will continue to give every help to the new organisation. The House will wish English hop growers well in the years ahead.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I shall not detain the House long. I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr.


Hamilton) for his kind words about the Hops Marketing Board, its servants and members over the past 50 years. We look forward to examining in more detail in Committee many of the detailed points in the Bill. We wish British hop growers well, and we shall consider the Bill carefully in Committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) is aware that I moved the Bill formally. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) for agreeing to that course. I know that he wishes to raise matters in Committee, and we look forward to that occasion.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for his kind comments not only about the Hops Marketing Board, with which I am sure we all agree, but about me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CURRENCY BILL

Not amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question; That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Poland

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer].

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I am glad that we are having this debate on Poland, even though it will be shorter than we had hoped, because I recognise the intense and justified concern of the House about the critical situation in Poland. It is a concern which the Government share in full measure.
Poland is a country for which I believe the vast majority of us feel a particular warmth and admiration, a country whose people have become synonymous with courage. Many of us had first-hand experience of the gallantry and valour of the Poles when they fought side by side with us during the last war, distinguishing themselves in the Battle of Britain and in campaigns in North Africa and Europe. We remember with gratitude their distinctive blend of physical courage and spiritual strength, laced with a marvellous, irreverent Polish sense of humour.
The redoubtable character of the Poles saw them through the appalling sufferings of the Second World War when they lost some 6 million dead—the same combination of qualities that have sustained them through a history unhappily punctuated by tragedy. Three times partitioned in the late eighteenth century, Poland ceased to exist as a sovereign State for over a hundred years, only re-emerging on the map of Europe after the First World War.
In 1939, only 21 years after her resurrection, she was again partitioned, this time by the twin tyrranies of Hitler and Stalin. However, Poland's history, if tragic, is also instructive. Despite the efforts of her neighbours in the nineteenth century, the idea of Poland lived on in the hearts of the Poles and was again realised in the re-emergence and renewal of Poland in the twentieth century. This is a lesson: those who would now extinguish today's renewal would do well to ponder on the failure, over many generations, of oppression, force and tyranny to subdue the Polish spirit.
What has been happening in Poland in the last 17 months has inspired a sense of excitement and hope not only in Poland itself, but throughout Europe. Here, it seems, is proof that political change is possible, even where the dead hand of totalitarianism has lain so heavily and for so long. Despite their valour, the Second World War brought no new dawn to the Poles; merely the imposition of Stalin's will in cynical disregard of the wishes and traditions of the Polish people. The Iron Curtain descended, locking the Poles, along with so many of their neighbours, into a system where free expression has no place. For that very reason it is not a system suited to the Polish character.
In 1956, in 1968, in 1970 and in 1976 the Poles tried to change it, often at great cost in terms of the risks run and the lives lost. Let us not forget that the events of the last 17 months have not come from nowhere.
The renewal movement is the culmination of a long process of popular revolt against a system imposed from without and rejected from within; a process which, in 1980, produced a new force, Solidarity, led by the charismatic Lech Walesa.
The renewal has offered inspiration to the Polish people and has enjoyed enormous popular support. It has been watched with sympathy and hope by many other of our fellow Europeans to the east of the Elbe. It certainly has our sympathy, which we have expressed not only with words but with deeds. During the last year, we have given £65 million of commercial credit, and have also made available short-term credit facilities. We have provided food supplies at special prices from the European Community, including over 450,000 tonnes of British barley, 10,000 tonnes of British butter, and 3,000 tonnes of British beef, together with the credit necessary to finance those purchases.
We are considering how we can ensure that supplies of food are distributed to those Poles who most need them. As Presidency of the Community, we have called an urgent meeting in Brussels this evening of the Community ambassadors to review the situation and to consider arrangements to ensure that these supplies are distributed in a way satisfactory to the Community and to the benefit of those whose need is greatest. We shall also need in due course to decide what arrangements should be considered for these or other kinds of help to Poland in 1982. No immediate decisions are necessary, and it would be premature to take them until the course of events in Poland is clearer. However, while the present policies prevail in Poland, it will clearly not be possible to continue on the basis of business as usual.
We supplied this assistance, in company with many of our Western partners, to help the Poles while they grappled with their economic and political difficulties. This was assistance which, I have no doubt, had the strong support of this House, which has shared the Government' s hope that, by a process of dialogue and compromise, Poland would evolve a system more responsive to the needs and wishes of its people. However, tragically, the hopes engendered by the Polish August of 1980 are now shrouded by the clampdown of this December. The long night threatens to fall once again in Poland. Martial law has been declared and a state of emergency has been imposed. There is a curfew, civil liberties are suspended, and trade union activity is banned. There have been thousands of arrests. Lech Walesa has been depraved of liberty and sequestered in silence. From the start it was a very comprehensive clampdown, obviously planned in detail and well in advance. Since then, things have become very much worse. A tragic threshold was crossed on the fifth day, when at least seven miners were killed in Silesia.
Poland is now clearly in the grip of wholesale repression, and we hear a stream of alarming reports: of many more arrests and deaths, and of terrible conditions in the internment camps. Today there are rumours, which are particularly horrifying in view of Poland's recent history, that anti-Semitic prejudices may again be emerging. Let me say at once that we have no hard evidence to confirm much of what we hear. The reports may be far-fetched; no one would be more pleased than I if they were. However, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made abundantly clear to the Polish ambassador this afternoon, the military authorities' obsession with secrecy prevents Governments and international public opinion from distinguishing rumour and speculation from the truth.
What is clear is that there has been widespread resistance to the new measures. The Church in Poland has


not concealed its dismay. As the days have gone by since the clampdown began, we have heard of growing numbers of strikes and sit-ins in factories, mines and universities and crowds gathering in cities. We have heard of evictions by the authorities, of beatings, of the use of truncheons and tear gas. We have heard also of miners who have taken their families into the mines of Silesia and are threatening to blow themselves up. It is a grim picture, but, because of the restrictions imposed on foreign diplomats and correspondents, it cannot be a full one.
From the start of this new crisis the Government have made clear their mounting concern about events in Poland. Since I spoke in the House on 14 December the Governments of the Ten have made a statement underlining their anxiety and their sympathy for the Polish people. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spoke about Poland in his speech to the European Parliament on 17 December. The British delegate at the Madrid review conference has also made our views clear. In a word, we utterly condemn the repression that is now going on and we deplore the suspension of civil liberties. We also deplore the bloodshed and the injury that has resulted.
Some hon. Members may recall a sonnet by the great English poet Tennyson about Poland which includes the historic question:
How long shall the icy-hearted Muscovite oppress the region?
There has been speculation about whether martial law has been imposed on Poland at Moscow's diktat, or whether it was merely done with the Russians' encouragement. At present we cannot say, but we can be sure that the Russians knew and approved of what General Jaruzelski has done, and they will hope that his actions will safeguard the system they imposed on Eastern Europe after the war.
The Russians have repeatedly made clear their opposition to the Polish renewal and have pressed for action against it. The means of pressure have included press comment on mounting resistance, letters to the Polish leadership which were then published and military exercises in and around Poland. All this is known. What may have been taking place in private we can only guess, but it requires only a small amount of imagination to guess that the Russians are now delighted and relieved by what is happening. Since the renewal began, Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly warned the Soviet Union that direct intervention by it would create the gravest international situation for many years. I repeat that warning here tonight.
Since the Polish crisis intensified nine days ago, one of the Government's highest priorities has been to co-ordinate policy with our partners. There have been consultations in NATO. The North Atlantic Council will meet again tomorrow to discuss Poland. My right hon. and noble Friend has had talks with other Foreign Ministers and the member States of the European Community. There have been discussions with many other countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Spain. There is a high level of agreement among the Western Governments. We are continuing to hold very close consultations with our partners.
Meanwhile, there are important practical problems. Consignments of voluntary aid continue to leave this country. We have asked the Polish authorities to ensure

that these supplies of essential food and medicines are allowed into their country without delay. The Polish embassy in London has assured us that they are getting through. My information is that this is the case, but we are, with the help of the agencies, following this as closely as possible. We are prepared to make a contribution towards the general co-ordination and work of the agencies in their efforts to provide food and medical supplies and my officials are in touch with the agencies to consider how this might best be done.
British nationals in Poland are restricted in their movements. Although many have left the country, others have been unable to do so. British Airways flights have been interrupted since martial law was declared. The Government have made representations to the authorities about relaxation of these restrictions and about access for our consular staff to the cities where there are British subjects. Our embassy is in touch with British nationals in Warsaw. We have told all British nationals in Poland to listen to the BBC for advice. I am glad to tell the House that there is no news of any British subject being harmed.
British journalists are restricted in their work. This is highly regrettable. We have made representations to the Polish authorities about the importance of open communications. There has been limited improvement, and journalists can now send some reports, but a cumbersome system of censorship is in operation which is contrary to the Polish Government's commitment under the Helsinki Final Act, and should be lifted immediately.
Some Polish nationals visiting this country have asked to stay. As the House, I think, knows, they have been given leave to remain here for a further period.
There is also the question, in which some hon. Members have expressed their interest, of the BBC's broadcasts in Polish. As the House knows, there are at present 21¼ hours of broadcasting in the Polish language each week—about three hours a day. As a result of our discussions with the BBC. I am glad to say that this will be increased by three-quarters-of-an-hour each day. These extra periods will be devoted to news bulletins and topical commentary and will start tomorrow morning.
In a statement on 16 December the military authorities in Poland said that they were acting
in the name of saving the basic content of the socialist renewal
and would return to the path of reform as quickly as possible. They have told us that there will be a place for Solidarity without what they call extremist elements. We note these statements. In talks with the authorities in Warsaw and with the new Polish ambassador in London, we have emphasised the importance of implementing these assurances quickly. We wait to see if they will live up to their word.
The renewal of the last 17 months has been an effort by the Polish people to escape peacefully from the rigidities and inadequacies of the much vaunted "road to socialism" which has brought such social, political and economic miseries upon them. Tragically, their efforts have now been met by the imposition of martial law which, as we have learnt in these last few days, leads through a depressing but familiar pattern of repression, truncheons and tear gas, of barbed wire and internment camps and of beatings, shootings and deaths.
We hope above all that the authorities will now desist from violence and release those that have been detained. I say that these are our hopes, but the situation is too uncertain for us to be confident. The world is watching to


see whether and how soon the authorities will take the action which could give meaning to their words. How can Poland resume work and emerge from her economic crisis? How can Poland look to a future of hope unless that future is determined by the full hearted agreement of the Polish people themselves?
I have painted a sombre picture, for that is what it is. We know, as well as most, the qualities of the Poles, their enduring will and their vitality. We all hope that those qualities will prevail and that Poland will speedily get back on to the path on which she started 17 months ago. If she does not, the world will know that it is brute force that is preventing it. The free world will give no comfort to brute force.

Mr. Denis Healey: The Lord Privy Seal has given us a sombre introduction to what I fear is bound to be a sombre debate. To quote the defecting Polish ambassador in Washington:
The cruel night of darkness and silence has spread over a country—
a country to which I believe we have a unique moral responsibility. Like many hon. Members of my age, I have many personal links with Poland. I served with the Polish Corps in Italy. I spent the early years after the war trying to protect what remained of Polish socialism from destruction under Soviet occupation. Ever since, I have maintained close contact with Polish friends, both inside the country and emigrants, as they maintain contact with one another. One of the striking things about the Poles is that among them, more than any other people, blood is thicker than water.
No one who, like people of my age, has lived through this period can approach the current situation without a certain sense of guilt. I make no apology for using that word. It is true that we declared war when Poland was attacked in 1939, but we were unable, for physical reasons, to lift a finger to help the Poles from being occupied by Germany.
The Poles made a major contribution to our own war effort by land, sea and air. Yet, we found it necessary, for reasons of State, to cover over the crime of Katyn for fear of upsetting the Russians. When the Russian armies stood passive on the other side of the river as the Germans pounded Warsaw to pieces and the Poles fought them in the sewers, the British, despite heroic efforts by the Balkan air force, were unable to give significant help. At Yalta, we allowed Russia to take eastern Poland into the Soviet Union and to install a Communist Government under guarantees of free elections which they did not even expect us to believe.
For all those reasons, we watched the growth of Solidarity in the past 18 months with a special excitement and hope, and we have watched the events of the past eight days with a special horror. What can we do other than to express our horror? We renounced direct military intervention long ago, and the Secretary-General of NATO did so explicitly earlier this year. Short of that, we cannot rationally decide how to help those who are fighting for freedom in Poland without a careful analysis of the position. I shall do my best to contribute to such an analysis.
In my opinion, the rise of Solidarity in the past 18 months showed that Poland had entered a revolutionary era in the most fundamental sense of that phrase. As in France

in 1789 and Russia in 1917, the people had lost confidence in their system of government; and, in consequence, the apparatus of State was disintegrating and the economy was collapsing.
The Soviet leaders will not allow a revolution to take place in Poland and a new system to be born on the ruins of the old. So for 18 months Solidarity, representing the Polish people, and the Government, representing the State, have been trying to reach some compromise that is acceptable to the Russians, with the Church doing its best to oil the wheels of negotiation.
To the Soviet leaders, survival of the Communist Party in its leading role and of Communist ideology as its guiding principle have been as fundamental an objective as the security of their State, but it is now clear that neither the Communist Party nor the Communist ideology can survive in Poland in the old form. The Poles have never accepted the Communist dictatorship imposed on them in 1945, because it is alien to their culture and to their sense of nationhood.
Since 1945 a series of crises has shaken the Polish Communist Party to its core. In 1956, the worst excesses of Stalinism were tempered by Gomulka, but he failed to adapt the political and economic structure to a more liberal regime. Many of us had some hopes when Mr. Gierek took over, but while he was in power the Communist bureaucracy became increasingly inefficient and corrupt. It is a significant irony that those who suffered worst were the working people that it claimed to represent. '[he working people of Poland rose against the Communist bureaucracy in the Baltic ports, as their comrades had risen against similar bureaucracies in East Berlin, Budapest and Prague. In the end, they produced an alternative to the current system in the Solidarity movement. Hundreds of thousands of Communist Party members, Communist bureaucracy members and those from the armed forces have joined Solidarity during the past 18 months. The Solidarity movement has penetrated all areas of Poland, except the security police, which remains in practice part of the Soviet KGB.
When General Jaruzelski became Secretary o f the Communist Party, as well as Prime Minister, the Communist Party's doom in its old form was sealed. It is significant that he is ruling Poland through not a Communist Government but a military council. The Gierek leadership is in gaol, together with two members of the existing Politburo of the Polish Communist Party.
Military takeovers are all too familiar in the non-Communist world. We have had them recently in Greece, Turkey, Chile and Pakistan, although it did not deter us from rescheduling their debts. However, this is the first military takeover in the Communist world. It must have a profound and disturbing significance for the old men in the Kremlin.
For us in the West the real test must be whether General Jaruzelski can or will fulfil the promises that he made publicly last week to the Polish people to bring martial law to an end as soon as possible and to resume the dialogue with the Solidarity movement and the Church, as both bodies would wish. I understand that the Pope this morning, after discussing the matter with his emissary who has just returned from Warsaw, said that he believed that a peaceful solution must be sought through co-operation between the Polish authorities, the Church and the Solidarity movement.
For that reason, I do not believe that all is necessarily lost. Therefore, our actions must be calculated not to extinguish that hope but to nurture it and to offer incentives to those, perhaps in the Polish Army, who wish to resume the dialogue and disincentives to those, certainly in the security police, who wish to undo the reforms of the past 18 months.
What does that mean in practice? I suggest, first, that we must not inflame passions with calls to violent resistance. The Times leader of 16 December earned a justified rebuke this morning from Mr. Czerniawski. There is no case here for heroism by proxy. We can do certain things that will help immediately. I hope that the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will tell us that the Government will accept a substantial proportion of the refugees who are bound to leave Poland for the West in increasing numbers, whatever happens in the coming months. I am talking about new refugees, not people who happen to have been here and to whom the Government have given the right to stay.
Secondly, we must not cut off food aid. I do not believe that any Pole would approve President Reagan's decision to take that step. It would be much better if the food could be distributed by the Church, but the important thing is that the food should get through. Otherwise, the strains on Polish society, not to speak of the sufferings of the Polish people this winter, could become intolerable.
Thirdly, we must make it clear that any new economic or financial aid, whether the supply of equipment or the granting of commercial credit, must depend upon the dismantling of the apparatus of martial law and a resumption of the political dialogue. I am uncertain whether that should apply to the rescheduling of existing debts. I remind the House that year after year we have rescheduled the debt of the Chilean Government despite the military takeover there.
Fourthly—this is the most important point that I wish to make—we must not use sanctions against Poland that should be held in reserve for possible use against the Soviet Union and the satellite Governments if they were to intervene directly with military force. It is true that the Soviet Government are intervening in Poland now. They have done so every day for the past 36 years, but if they were to use their armed forces to crush the Polish people, it would be by far the most dangerous development in the world since 1945.
What is happening now is tragedy and a catastrophe. The Foreign Secretary was right to use those words yesterday. Hundreds of people have been killed and thousands are in gaol, often in appalling conditions. However, Soviet military intervention would mean civil war. It would mean a national resistance movement on the scale that the Poles mounted against the Germans in the Second World War, but in this instance it would be based on the factories rather than on the manor houses of Poland. Hundreds of thousands of people would be killed and millions would be gaoled or even transported.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is not the use of Polish forces in Poland quite different from the importation of Soviet troops from other countries? My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal dealt with that important point earlier. Nevertheless, the present operation has been mounted by Soviet brains.

Mr. Healey: I was making that point when the hon. Gentleman interrupted. We must remember that there is and would be an enormous difference in the response of the Polish people.
I do not believe that Mr. Brezhnev wants direct intervention with Soviet forces, but we must make it clear that, if he used Soviet troops to suppress the Polish people, he would face a range of specific economic and financial sanctions that would add immeasurably to the strains on the Soviet system. If he took such a step, the damage to the hopes of detente and disarmament might take decades to repair. If we imposed the sanctions now, we should weaken the disincentives to the Russians to use military force against Poland. We must hold the measures in reserve and hope that we are never required to use them.
The consequences even of what has already happened will spread over many months—even years. At this early stage two are worth commenting on. No one can deny that what has happened in Poland in the past eight days has struck a fatal blow to the noble hopes of many in the West who sincerely believed that unilateral disarmament in the West would find an echo in the East. It is no longer possible to sustain that belief.
The second lesson is that events may prove that Europe has a political meaning and function, even when its economic arrangements in many respects are absurd, farcical and damaging. The crisis has already shown that we in Western Europe can understand the agonies of Eastern Europe in all their complexity much better than, at any rate, the current leaders in Washington. The existence of a political identity in Western Europe may offer Eastern Europe a perspective—perhaps long-term—for a looser and more acceptable relationship with the Soviet Union than has so far been possible.
That is all for the future. For the moment the question is: what can we do in the coming weeks to help the situation? I repeat that our duty is clear. We must provide all the food aid that we can be sure will reach the Polish people. We must give no new economic and financial help unless the dialogue with the Church and Solidarity is resumed and makes progress. We must give specific warnings to the Soviet Government of the economic, financial and political penalties that they will face if they use their forces to crush the Polish people. I fear that beyond that we can only watch and pray.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Hon. Members who were present earlier will have heard Mr. Speaker say that the debate ends at 10 o'clock and that there will not be time to move to the second debate on the Order Paper concerning the situation in the Middle East.
Eighteen right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to speak, and there may be others. I appreciate the importance of the debate and the strong feelings in the House, but I appeal for short speeches from right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Julian Amery: When the Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) caused the House to be recalled. The crisis that we are discussing is not much less serious, and it is a poor reflection on us that we can allow only so short a time to discuss it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Having served in the Foreign Office, I understand that Ministers there must be cautious, although I welcome the more robust stand taken by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. However, for those of us who are not carrying ministerial responsibility it is a time to face facts. It is not our job to make the world safe for hypocrisy.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) knows the subject well, and I agree with much of his analysis. He emphasised the distinction in his mind between what is happening in Poland and what would happen if Soviet forces were to intervene. However, let us face it—this is not a purely Polish affair. It is not even a mainly Polish affair. We have seen a number of civil disruptions in other countries—in Spain at the time of the civil war, in France during the occupation and in Vietnam—but the different sides all had deep roots in the societies to which they belonged. That is not the case in Poland. General Jaruzelski does not represent the workers, the peasants, the Church or the intelligentsia of his country. He has no foundation there at all.
It is worth looking at what the Polish army is. It was created by a Soviet marshal, Marshal Rokossovsky, after the Second World War. Every officer over the rank of colonel on the operational side goes to the staff college in the Soviet Union. Its equipment is entirely Soviet. The special forces carrying out the repression are branches of the KGB. Even the rations on which the army depends come from outside Poland. The army can rely on the back-up of two Soviet armoured divisions. They have not intervened; but one has only to recall one's military experience to know what their presence must mean to the Polish army.
The Foreign Secretary talked of the importance of strict non-intervention. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East re-emphasised his call with regard to the Russians. He admitted that there is a great deal of intervention already. There have been manoeuvres and unheard of economic and political pressures. Does it make much difference whether the Soviet army intervenes physically or whether the wishes of the Kremlin are carried out through what is, in effect, a surrogate force? General Jaruzelski may still need direct intervention. The House will remember that not so long ago there was a coup in Afghanistan when President Daoud was overthrown and the local communist leader tried to take over. He could not do it. I am not so sure that the general in Poland can either.
But the question is what do we do. As the right hon. Member for Leeds East said, we are not without resources. We have great economic power. I doubt whether the reconstruction of Poland is within the capability not even of just the Polish people but of the whole Comecon bloc. They need the help of western Europe and the United States if they are to put Poland on the economic rails again. We also have great financial potential. The cancellation of loans and default would hurt our banking system in the West considerably. It would hurt the Eastern bloc a great deal more. We have a good deal of moral power, exercised through the media and through the arms talks. If President Brezhnev cares at all about the arms talks, he should be a little careful about what he does in Poland. We cannot separate what goes on in Geneva from what goes on in Warsaw. It would be ludicrous to be discussing disarmament in Geneva while Poland was being repressed in the way that we see.
We are not altogether devoid of military power. Of course, there is no question of our intervening in Poland,

but there are areas in the world where the Soviet Union has interests and where its interests are vulnerable—in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. Moscow should have that in mind also. We are not in a weak negotiating position.
Some people say "Why do you take this question so seriously? All that is happening is that Poland is going back to the position that existed before August 1980". That is not the case.
The period of detente changed the world in many respects. It was not just the document to which we put our signature in Helsinki but the immense increase in commercial, financial and cultural exchanges that produced a greater freedom and a greater interchange between East and West. That position cannot be reversed with any safety. Of course, detente produced its disappointments—in Angola, Abyssinia, Aden and Afghanistan. But what is happening in Poland is the first time that detente has been in direct question on the European Continent, to which the Helsinki agreement specifically applies. What is at stake is the good faith of the Soviet Union in Europe. Why should we trade and negotiate with it if its good faith is as much in question as it is?
The crisis goes deeper still. The Polish crisis epitomises the complete failure of the Soviet economic system, not just in Poland but in the rest of Eastern Europe. It epitomises the political failure to reconcile the pride in independent nations with the imperial designs of the Soviet Union. Poland was the first of its post-war conquests, just as Afghanistan is the latest. It has failed miserably in both. In neither, and nowhere else, is the Soviet raj acceptable.
The Polish crisis brings us to the edge of an abyss. The question that it poses is "Is it still possible to continue with detente?" Is it possible in these circumstances for the West to do what it has been dong to contribute to the ecomomic recovery of Eastern Europe? Is it still possible for the Soviets to accept the principles underlying the Helsinki agreement? If that were so, and if there were a return to a dialogue between Solidarity, the Church and the Communist Party in Poland, there would be hope. If not, we shall not just be going back to the cold war; we shall be going on to something much more serious.
In all this—here I part company with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—it is essential to move closely in step with the United States. Its appreciation of the position has been quicker and more accurate than ours in Europe. I have been concerned about the differences that have arisen between us over the Middle East, but differences over Poland would be even more serious. It is of paramount importance that Britain and the United States should work together and should be seen to be doing so.
I agree that in putting the problem as harshly as have done, we shall run risks. We lead in respect of the Soviet Union in our economic and financial power. It leads militarily. In a gladatorial confrontation this would be an encounter between the trident and the net. So inevitably the situation that we are discussing is very fragile. In such a fragile situation it is natural for those responsible to temporise. But fear is a bad counsellor.
I cannot guarantee—no one can guarantee—that by standing firm against the threat posed by what is going on in Poland we shall win through without risk and without a high price. We have already let our armaments go so low that the price may be high. What I am sure of is that if we do not so stand we shall pay a much higher price, and in very short order.
The Polish crisis is the moment of truth for the West. Let us face it while we can.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: Many years ago I believed that the strongest argument for my party and my country in belonging to the European Community was that of trying to make that grouping a more effective political force. I wish to see the Community co-ordinate its policies through political co-operation. I wish to see it speak with one voice in withstanding pressures. I wish to see it exert influence and become a force for stability in world affairs.
I speak tonight because I still hold that view.
The disaster which has struck Poland has struck at the very heart of the continent in which we live, and I regard the situation there as a challenge to the Community. If European unity means anything at all, it means that we have obligations to our neighbours on that continent in which we live together.
I want to speak particularly to the Government Front Bench, because, although we are in the final days of the United Kingdom's Presidency of the Council, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary still carry a responsibility to work towards a constructive European policy of not simply responding to events but of creating initiatives to try to meet and solve the problems.
Of course there can be no military interference in the internal affairs of Poland. The Community has no military dimension, nor should it have, but it has a political will and it has the resources which, if applied properly, can help to alleviate deprivation and to ease the way until such time as developments take place which can lead to negotiation and conciliation.
The Minister rightly placed on record the amount of food aid and all types of aid which this country and the Community have made and are making available. But the need of the Polish people for sustenance, warmth and medical supplies will increase as deprivation and a harsh winter take their toll. I believe that the millions of people throughout the Community who often complain about the production of surpluses, whether they be mountains or molehills, of food, grain, dairy produce, steel and textiles, would want to see those resources used in showing real solidarity, both moral and economic, with the Polish people.
What initiatives, as President of the Council, have been taken by Britain within the Community to increase the existing assistance programme? I was pleased to hear the Minister say that even tonight meetings are taking place in Brussels in an attempt to involve perhaps international organisations, perhaps religious groups and the Church, in using their expertise in acting on behalf of the 10 nations to carry out distributive work and to see that what is available reaches those in greatest need.
Never has the time been more important than now for us to show that we are more than a mere trading entity, but that we are 270 million people with a human face and that we are inspired with the need to exercise political will and to use the resources that we have produced within our Community to relieve the suffering of others who live cheek by jowl with us on the same continent.
Newspaper reports today seem to indicate that Western banks have refused Poland's recent request for a bridging

loan, on the ground that the request was made improperly. I do not know about the propriety of making such requests, but I wonder whether the intention is that, while denying such loans, we make Poland even more heavily dependent upon the Soviet Union. That is quite apart from the rescheduling of debts long overdue. Surely, even in the dying days of Britain's Presidency, schemes can be worked out to find some way of guaranteeing Western bank bridging loans so that the process of stabilisation can be assisted. It may well lead to future negotiations and advance that process in Poland.
As I understand it, last week the military council in Warsaw spoke of the possible release of those in detention and of a move towards a process of negotiation and conciliation. That is fundamental to producing a solution to the situation and I wonder what initiatives the Foreign Secretary has taken since then, in concert with member States, to press for the release of the detainees and to ask for the assurances, given a week or 10 days ago, to be made effective.
I put this question because I see that, in reporting on the United Kingdom Presidency, only last week the Foreign Secretary spoke of the Community's strengthened political commitment to joint action in foreign affairs. He spoke of agreed procedures for convening meetings quickly to deal with crises wherever they occur. I would not wish anything to be said in the House which would worsen an already bad situation in Poland, but to express grave concern is not enough. I seek assurances that the voice of the people of the Community is being heard in Warsaw and that action is being taken to provide aid and medical supplies and to see that they reach those in need.
The year is moving to an end in a cloud of uncertainty. Poland seems to have frozen us into a silence. We hear cries from other Europeans in need, but it seems that in the name of non-interference we have to stuff our ears with wax. It is very saddening. The crisis of which the Foreign Secretary spoke is with us and we now need to know that before this country relinquishes the Presidency we are providing the political will to move our resolve into peaceful action in support of those who are oppressed and in need. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: It gives me much pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). I agree wholeheartedly with what she said about the EEC and the possible chance of its being the example. It is tragic that Poland and other Eastern European countries could be part of the EEC and probably would be if it were not for the Russian yoke. We can only live and hope for the day when that dream comes true.
I should like to associate myself with some of the profound remarks made by the Shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I, too, am of an age to remember being alongside Polish troops during the Second World War. I agree with what he said about the guilt at Yalta and the 36 years of Soviet intervention. The situation in Poland is tragic and will obviously put a strain on the nuclear disarmament talks which all of us wish to take place multilaterally.
As we rise for Christmas, it is tragic that another ancient and historic European and Christian nation is having to go through what the Polish nation is enduring. Liberty and the right to strike are being crushed. Those two


principles are upheld by both political parties in this country. What we are seeing epitomised in Poland is the bankruptcy not only of any moral philosophy but even of any material philosophy. It is dead and buried. It can do nothing for the spirit and nothing for the body. It is totally and utterly bankrupt.
We have seen what happened in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and we trust that things will get no worse in Poland. [Interruption.] I think that I heard somebody say "Chile". I get annoyed at the great howls of simulated protest and mock anguish when one tinpot dictator of the Right lords it over some small banana republic in South America, while there is never a cheep about the hundreds of millions of people enslaved by the dictatorships of the Left.
I recall the famous remark of Stalin, the arch butcher, during the war "How many divisions has the Pope?" Tonight in Poland the only place in which people can meet and talk is under the sign not of the hammer and sickle but of the Cross. We have this wretched tyranny now stretching from Berlin to the Pacific ocean, from the Arctic circle to Kabul. I do not mind what words are used—Communism, Marxism, Trotskyism, or the Militant Tendency. They are just degrees of the same rotten system of human oppression.
As for the standards of living in the so-called workers' paradises, we see continual food shortages in agriculturally fertile countries. Where is the greatest discrepancy between the pay of officers and of other ranks? In the British Army? No, in the Russian Army. What about the difference in shopping facilities for the rulers and the ruled? Are they to be found in Britain and America? No, they are to be found in Russia. What about the elite and their holiday bungalows in the Soviet Union?
The Soviet Union certainly outdistances the West in one area. It has the greatest number of men and materials in armed forces that the world has ever seen-and for what purposes? Truly, it is guns before butter with a vengeance.
The world has seen many thousands of years of the history of wars and conflict, but whether it be Hadrian's Wall or the Great Wall of China, walls were built to keep people out. Only one wall was ever built to keep people in—the Berlin Wall. We must strive for and await the day when the world is cleansed of this despicable and discreditable system of human slavery and bondage.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) on his first speech for some time from the Back Benches, although I must say to him quite gently that there are more than two views in this House.
What we are witnessing in Poland, and have witnessed over the past 17 months, has been the rejection by the great mass of its people of the Communist system by which they have been governed since the war. Those of us who, under our pluralist system, are accustomed more to overcoming public apathy than to changing State authority have to admit difficulty in understanding the bitter, surging force of that rejection and the entrenched power of the authorities that it challenges. Therefore, part of our consideration of what our response to those developments should be must be to look at the nature of our relationships with what, to be neutral, I will call the Comecon.
I have never believed that the maintenance of dialogue between the two systems—and, indeed, the reduction of

tension between them—requires one to engage in the pretence that the differences are less than they really are. To do so is to make a profound political mistake, of w Lich the Trades Union Congress, acting collectively, has been guilty.
On Sunday I stood on the steps of the Polish embassy with Bill Sirs of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. No one can challenge Bill's adherence to democracy. I am not in any way seeking to generalise, nor am I saying that the long-standing relationships with the trade unions in Comecon—which, in the Polish case, Solidarity would now describe as puppet unions—which many British unionists maintain, should be severed. I do, however, say that their relationship should be re-examined.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is the hon. Member aware that a Conservative Member of Parliament was prevented from standing with him and Members of other parties at the door of the Polish embassy on Sunday? The only Conservative Member of Parliament present at the rally in Hyde Park for Solidarity was physically prevented from speaking, until I finally managed to grab the microphone and was able to speak as it were by default. That has——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I hope that the hon. Gentleman is making an intervention and not a speech.

Mr. Greenway: I merely want to ask the hon. Gentleman to draw the attention of all Poles who are organising rallies in this country and elsewhere to the fact that freedom of speech is as important here as it is in Poland.

Mr. Johnston: I had nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. I was not aware of any problem. However, if he says that there was a problem, I suppose that there must have been. In any event, he has made his point.
I was saying that the trade unions should consider their relationship with the unions in the East. If there is anything meaningful in that relationship it should now be used to press directly the case for free trade unions. That is most important.
It is not enough for Mick McGahey to call for a minute's silence at a meeting of the National Union of Mineworkers for the seven Polish Silesian miners who were shot. He and his new president, Arthur Scargill, know that if one miner was imprisoned, far less killed, in similar circumstances in this country they would call a national strike. They must stand up unequivocably in support of the trade union freedoms sought by Solidarity, because those freedoms are no different from those that they enjoy. Next time I visit the Scottish TUC headquarters in Glasgow to see Jim Milne—as I do frequently—perhaps he will take down the banner of the Hungarian trade unions, which faces me when I enter the door. It is not that I want him to stop talking to the Hungarians; I want him to stop pretending that they have the same freedoms as we have, or possibly even more.
My second broad point relates to the impact of the position in Poland on disarmament negotiations. No doubt other hon. Members have read, as I have, the enormously troubled and rather diffuse article by Professor E. P. Thompson in The Times today. I do not cavil at his good intent. However, what is happening in Poland is not a new


manifestation but the exacerbation of an old well-established pattern that has exact parallels in Comecon's other member States. Only in Poland has the steam exploded from the kettle. His basic error lies in seeking to equate NATO and the Warsaw Pact as being exactly equal enemies of peace.
The starkest rebuttal of this further pretence is that one can imagine the events in Poland rehearsed even more fiercely in the German Democratic Republic but one cannot imagine them in the Federal Republic of Germany. Peace and freedom, Professor Thompson rightly says, are indivisible.
But that does not mean that the situation in Poland need in any way adversely affect the pursuit in Geneva of a measured and sustained reduction in arms expenditure and missile deployment. The two systems exist. If possible, they must avoid mutual destruction. They will not make a practical resolution easier by pretending that a vast political, if not moral, divide does not exist.
This morning I had an hour-long meeting with the Rumanian ambassador at his request. First, he said—from the other side of Iron Curtain—that in his Government's view Polish problems should be settled by the Poles. He said that there should be no intervention from outside, meaning the Soviet Union. Secondly, he said that there should be no stimulation or aggravation of anti-Socialist elements from outside by which he meant the West, since either course would lead to bloodshed and possibly to the gravest international consequences. He said that General Jaruzelski must be allowed to restore an anarchic situation to normality and that the normality would be a Polish normality, allowing for Polish interpretations of Socialism.
That approach is certainly inadequate from a Liberal point of view, but I found it extremely positive. It is something that can be built on.
It is a great pretence to act as if we can directly affect events in Poland. Even if the Russians were to go in directly and to act with the same harshness and brutality as they displayed in Hungary, we shall not go to war. However, indirectly we can do a great deal.
First, the unions can and must use the influence that they have built up over the years. That influence could have a crucial and vital effect. Secondly, we could link our support—whether through the banks or in broader economic measures—to evidence of a positive response towards Solidarity and to an involvement between Solidarity and the Government in seeking a solution that achieves both the freedoms that it seeks and improved efficiency for Poland's economy. Thirdly, when speaking to the Soviet Union we must separate clearly those economic measures that we should be compelled to take if Russia intervened, from progress in further arms reduction That will not be easy, but it must be done. That message must also be made clear to the other Eastern European countries.
One factor is beyond political calculation and was referred to at length by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Britain and the EEC should not hesitate—irrespective of conditions—to act in respect of Poland's problems of food supplies, medical supplies and refugees. We should not make too many conditions. It would be better if supplies were distributed by Solidarity

or by the Church, but we should not make too many conditions. If Poland is faced with starvation, we must not be found wanting.
Likewise, I hope that the Government will not only take a liberal view of refugees in the United Kingdom but will be prepared to be equally supportive of Austria.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks, but a deplorably short amount of time has been allocated to a debate on such a vital issue as this. Given that we are discussing the extinction of human rights in Poland and the balance of East-West relations during one of the most difficult periods since the war, it is lamentable that we should have only two hours or so in which to debate the subject.
Some people still wonder whether there should be a Western response at all. Such nervousness is understandable, because there has been a loss of confidence in the Western world. We have material and economic problems. Within the various alliances and groupings in the Western world there are strains, and the terrible problem of the threatening nuclear imbalance hangs over us all. However, if we were to make no response and to take no action it would be far more dangerous than if we were to take action. We would betray the Polish people and also our commitment to the idea of democratic freedom. In addition, if the oppressors win in Poland, they will reinforce their position in other parts of Eastern Europe and the Western case will be further weakened.
Despite the loss of confidence by the West, we have many cards in our hands and many reasons why we should accept that we can deal with the situation, but that must be done jointly. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal tell the House about the consultations with our Western partners. None of us can emphasise too strongly the vital importance of consultation not only with the European Community and other parts of the Western world but with the United States, which has a clear understanding of and considerable sensitivity towards the events in, and the problems of, Poland.
It is essential to find the highest common degree of agreement among, the Western countries. Of course there are different perceptions, but we must not have another Afghanistan. We must get together and decide what should be done. What has been said so far in the debate suggests that that should not be difficult. A high degree of agreement has already emerged. I hope that it will do the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) no serious harm if I say that I agree with virtually all his propositions.
Essentially—and this is accepted by the American Government—food and medical supplies must continue, but every effort must be made to ensure that they go through non-Government channels, for obvious reasons. We should now cease credits, financial aid and technical transfers. Those must be used as the one lever that we have in the West to help the Polish people. Those measures must be carefully controlled in a careful negotiation with whoever is making the decisions in Warsaw. We must avoid fiercely pushing people into a corner. We must use sensible, diplomatic approaches to achieve the objectives that we all share.
The next stage must be prepared, that being much stronger action against the Soviet Union. That is also a question of pre-planning and timing. Probably the time is not yet right to take action on grain shipments, finance credit and high technology, but it must be made clear to the Soviet Union that the West is ready and determined to take such action. The Government should suggest that programme to their allies and put it into action immediately.
There are two other areas where the Government and the West should act. First, we should return to the offensive of political warfare and fight again the information war that we have been losing during the period of detente. The Soviet ideologues made it clear that detente was an opportunity for them to continue their ideological warfare. We have an ideological war to wage—we have our freedoms, democracy and economic prosperity. Whatever our present problems, we have a tremendous package to sell while, clearly, the Soviet Union has a dreadful package to sell. We must do much better and not be ashamed to do so. All Governments, especially ours, must be ready to make a tremendous effort. We are talking about small amounts of money, but also about the vital fight for the consciences and hearts of the world.
I wish to refer to another point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. We must now bring all effort to bear on those in this country and the West who have been lured by the attraction of unilateral disarmament. That some people advocate unilateral disarmament for particular motives can scarcely be gainsaid, and that the great majority are alarmed and deeply worried about the threat of nuclear war is correct. We must all maintain the pressure for multilateral, safe and controlled disarmament. Commentators such as Mr. E. P. Thompson, who was given the opportunity yet again to express his views in The Times this morning, say that we should now unilaterally disarm and trust the Soviet Union and other parts of Eastern Europe to follow suit. That view must be exploded.
The Soviet Union and its Polish proxies have torn up the vital issues of the final act of the Helsinki agreement, and as what is at stake there is the freedom of movement and information and other simple human freedoms, they cannot possibly be trusted to operate on a unilateral disarmament approach from the West.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House a cry from the heart which went to Mr. E. P. Thompson and to all those in this country who advocate unilateral disarmament. It was from a Czech dissident from Prague, signed only 12 months ago. He said that
the aim of a nuclear-free Europe is both naive and impossible: that but for the nuclear armoury of the West, and the pressure that it exerts upon the Soviet leaders, their totalitarian system will crush what vestigial liberties exist in the East.
He also said that they operate in a prison which means the daily quiet and inconspicuous humiliation of millions
Finally, he warned the unilateral disarmers in this country that their own efforts work
unconsciously in the interest of a totalitarian system whose aim is world domination based on the liquidation of human rights.
That is what we are seeing in Poland and that is what we must all avoid.

Mr. David Ennals: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) as this is a short debate.
For most people in Britain and for many hon. Members, Poland has a deep and significant meaning. I served with Poles in Normandy. I was in Warsaw in 1946—a city that was no more than rubble. I visited the concentration and mass extermination camps where millions of Polish people, as well as Jews, were deliberately assassinated. I have seen refugees who have settled in this country.
I have been back and forth to Poland. I feel that there is something close between our two countries. I am a Christian, a Socialist and a trade unionist. Therefore, I identify myself with Lech Walesa and Solidarity. Even those who do not necessarily accept those three parts recognise that men with courage were trying step by step to achieve what we all believe are the greatest things in life—freedom, peace and an ability to speak for themselves. That movement has been stamped on.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that it is too early to assume that all is lost. Perhaps what was done was meant to stop something worse being done. We may see some of the sacrifices made by those who have led Solidarity become meaningful in Poland in the years ahead. Let us not write off Solidarity. We must show our solidarity with Solidarity.
My second point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and other hon. Members. One of the most important things that we should do is to hasten and increase the food aid that we give to Poland. There have been pleas that we should pray for Poland. I am all in favour of praying for Poland, but even prayer is not enough if one has nothing in one's belly.
I am chairman of the Ockenden Venture. So far, with the lorry that went off yesterday, we have sent 100 tonnes of food and many thousands of pounds' worth of medical supplies. They have gone specifically to the people in the institutions set aside by the Catholic Church, where we had decided to help.
I believe that through the European Economic Community more than has been done should now be done. Of course we want to see aid distributed through the Catholic Church or other organisations than the Government. Some of it may go astray, but in Kampuchea we saved people from starvation. We can show no greater act of solidarity at this time than by magnifying the food aid and providing it quickly—and not only through voluntary organisations. The Government could probably do much more themselves and do more to help the voluntary organisations.
We must of course examine our inter-State relationship with Poland. We must consider economic co-operation, trade and debt relief. Those relations should be based on concessions made by the Polish Government. Every hon. Member, and I believe everyone in the country, wants to see Lech Walesa free in order that he can speak. Everyone wants to see the thousands of other leaders no longer detained. They are men of moderation, not extremists. They can lead Poland towards peace and settlement. They are not seeking to disturb the whole balance between East and West. They are not revolutionaries. They are not arguing the case for violence. If we are to maintain our


present economic relationship with Poland, it must be conditional upon the Polish Government's releasing those who have been put behind bars in the past 10 or 12 days.
That is enough from me. I hope that the House can speak with a sense of unity in saying "Solidarity—solidarity with Poland today".

Sir Bernard Braine: While I applaud both the tone and content of the two admirable speeches with which the debate opened, the Government must be left in no doubt about the reaction of many of us to what has been happening in Poland in recent weeks. It has been one of anger and frustration—anger because the first genuine moves towards democracy at the grassroots in a Communist country have been so brutally crushed, and frustration because so far, apart from shipments of some supplies of food, the reaction of Western Governments has been one of uncertainty.
Indeed, the first reaction was to say loftily that the Poles should be allowed to solve their own problems without intervention by third parties. That was completely to misunderstand the situation. Ever since 1945, thanks to the initial British and American failure to comprehend Soviet intentions and to ignore what was known of Soviet methods, there has been nothing but intervention in Poland by Moscow. There have been Soviet troops in Poland all the time. There are two Soviet divisions in Poland now.
When General Jaruzelski imposed martial law a fortnight ago, there were those in the West, some of them in high places, clutching at straws, who saw him as a sort of Polish patriot, almost a knight in shining armour, who, by checking growing anarchy, would make it unnecessary for the Soviet tanks to roll. He is nothing of the kind. It must have come as a great shock to many that Polish soldiers should shoot Polish workers and sweep thousands of their fellow countrymen into prison camps in appalling conditions where some of them have already died, but that has happened.
Why should anyone be so surprised? General Jaruzelski is no Bonaparte. His action had the full support and approval of Moscow before he moved. It was, of course, the necessary precursor to the re-establishment of the authority of the discredited, inept and corrupt Polish Communist Party.
The price of that will be extremely high. If the former Polish ambassador in Washington is to be believed, several hundred killings have taken place, thousands of innocent people have been rounded up in inhumane conditions, and factories and mines are surrounded by the security forces. Food shortages which were already causing difficulties before the military takeover are now worsening, a curfew is in force and in the most Catholic of all European countries there will be no Mass on Christmas Eve in Warsaw. That has been forbidden. Truly, the darkness has descended upon Poland.
What should be the response of the West? The message must go out from the House to our allies and friends, to the peoples of Eastern Europe, and to the Poles in particular, that we condemn this latest assault on the long-suffering Polish people. But protest is not enough. The first requirement is to recognise that not all the cards are in the hands of the Kremlin and its Polish puppets. Crushing Solidarity does not solve any problems for them.
What has happened in Poland in the past 16 months is unique and astonishing. The Solidarity movement was the first assertion by a proletariat in the Soviet empire since the Russian Revolution of their right to form free trade unions, to hold local elections and to speak freely—the right of the ruled to speak to the rulers. It was the first popular challenge to Soviet domination and to Communist terror by workers without arms in their hands and without outside intervention, and it must have been shattering in its effects upon the ageing men in the Kremlin.
Whatever happens in Poland in the next few months, whatever sufferings are inflicted upon that hero of our time, Lech Walesa, and his colleagues in the Solidarity movement or upon the Polish nation, nothing will ever be the same again. An unarmed but truly heroic people have stood up and borne witness against Soviet tyranny.
Secondly, what has happened in the past fortnight should have illumined the paradox that, while the Soviet Union is immensely strong militarily, it is morally and economically bankrupt. Jaruzelski's move solves nothing. Killing workers, locking their leaders up and surrounding factories and mines with troops will not increase production and will not feed starving people.
Equally, the whole Soviet bloc is now in the grip of a depression which makes our situation in the West seem light by comparison. The despots cannot feed their own people. They are heavily in debt. There is not one of their satellites, if freed from the threat of Red Army intervention, which would not reject Communism and all its works. There must be internal changes within the Soviet system if the whole rotten edifice is not to collapse. Therein lies the best hope for Poland, the West and perhaps even the Soviet people themselves.
In the past three months we in the British Solidarity with Poland Campaign, which I am glad to say draws support from both sides of the House, have urged that the West should offer a deal: that substantial economic help—possibly on the lines of the Marshall plan—should be made available, but only on strict conditions. We urged that President Reagan should send a high-powered emissary to Poland to discuss the matter, but, alas, such initiatives have not been taken.
The situation has now been worsened by the establishment of martial law. The voice of Solidarity has been silenced. The task of assessing need, establishing priorities and ensuring that aid goes to those who really need it has been made much more difficult. However, we still think that aid should be forthcoming. Indeed, that is the message that has come from so many speakers in the debate.
The conditions that I envisage can be stated simply. First, martial law must be lifted. Secondly, Mr. Lech Walesa and his colleagues in the Solidarity movement should be released so that the dialogue between the ruled and the rulers can be resumed and a new start made on the road to reform. Thirdly, there must be an immediate assurance—nobody has mentioned this in the debate so far and it is important—that none of those now held in detention will be transported to the Soviet Union. Their names and whereabouts must be made known. Better still, they should be released if no charges can be brought against them. The point is of immense importance, because every Pole remembers what happened to the 14,000 Polish officers who fell into Stalin's hands in 1940. Every Pole knows about the savage deportations from the Baltic States immediately after 1945. General Jaruzelski,


who already has Polish blood on his hands, must be made to understand that he will be held accountable for the fate of the people he has clawed in. They must not be transported to the Soviet Union. Fourthly, there should be a linkage between any aid given by the West and the Geneva disarmament talks. We should not give aid to strengthen Communist military power or to feed its soldiers. The price of economic aid should be an all-round reduction in arms, and there should be a linkage between economic assistance and the restoration of human rights.
The cost to the Soviet Union of rejecting such conditions would be high. Holding down 35 million Poles, with their long tradition of resistance to tyranny, would be a very different proposition from holding down and occupying a few towns in Afghanistan.
The cost should be made even higher by Western Governments making it plain that they will impose sanctions and stop the flow of grain—I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that sanctions should be imposed against the Soviet Union and not Poland—if there is any further bullying and intervention from that quarter.
Let us send a message tonight to the Poles: "We will not be party to your subjugation. We are with you heart and soul and will do all in our power to end the tyranny that has been imposed on you."

Mr. David Winnick: We are all full of worry and anxiety about what is happening in Poland. Every hon. Member including the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), has stressed the concern that we all feel. However, I shall preface my remarks about Poland by stating that those who speak critically about what is occurring there should have spoken out against military rule and the destruction of democratic liberties elsewhere.
I find it difficult to understand the sincerity of anyone who expresses concern about Poland but who did not express concern about what happened in Chile in 1973 when a democratic Government were destroyed by a military junta and about all the killings and torture which occurred in Chile from 1973 onwards. In addition, there are those who will not speak out about El Salvador and those who will not campaign against the regime in South Africa. They find many reasons why it is not politic or relevant to speak out against the horrors which happen to millions of people in South Africa because of the colour of their skin. I have said that because I believe there is a distinction to be made between the Tory Members who protest about what happens under Communist Party rule—as is happening in Poland today—and those of us who speak out and will continue to do so against all attempts to violate human rights.
The reports that are coming from Poland are tragic. The confrontation on the streets and in the factories between the military and workers, the killings that have taken place in the last 10 days, the detention and arrest of thousands of active trade unionists are all reasons why there is such concern and anxiety in the British trade union movement. Those of us who believe in trade unionism and who think that it is part of the dignity of working people that they can organise at their place of production, protest about the way in which trade unionism in Poland today is being destroyed and so many people are being persecuted for no other reasons than that they are active members of Solidarity.
It has been said by the Polish authorities—it has been said for many years—that they are a workers' State. It is rather like a State, run on capitalist lines, which claims to be dedicated to the market economy, and yet kills and imprisons bankers, industrialists and financiers.
The development of Solidarity last year and the mass support that it undoubtedly received from many Polish people showed the remoteness of the controlling authorities in Poland. It showed that the Government, who had existed on and off for the past 35 years, were unrepresentative of the mass of the people. The emergence of Solidarity in the summer of 1980 was a welcome development. It illustrated the monopoly of power by the ruling party.
Democratic Socialists often argue that, if power is allowed to be vested in one party and there is no opposition, inevitably dictatorship and tyranny will come about. What is also important is that there was no democracy within the ruling party in Poland. The emergence of Solidarity meant not only that Polish working people could belong to genuine trade unions, because previously trade unions were very much part of the State machinery, but a new lease of life in Poland. For example, the Polish Parliament became alive again. It was not just a rubber stamp. Genuine debates took place—perhaps for the first time in many years. In other walks of life, people had the opportunity of writing, making films, and producing plays. That was very different from the pre-Solidarity Poland.
I realise that it is easy to criticise from the comfort of the British House of Commons; I have already expressed my admiration of and full support for Solidarity, but in my opinion—and it may only be my opinion here—there were elements within Solidarity which did not help the situation. There were elements within Solidarity which, in my opinion, were more concerned with changing basic matters in Poland than with genuine trade unionism.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that?

Mr. Winnick: I am explaining what I mean, and I am explaining it, in some cases, to people in this country who are not very keen on trade unions, if I might say so.
It is interesting that a leading article in The Economist echoes the sentiments that I have just expressed. Those elements within Solidarity—which are a minority—played into the hands of people in Poland and in the Soviet Union who wanted the destruction of Solidarity and the ending of the emergence of civil liberties which had occurred in Poland during the last 16 to 18 months. So it is unfortunate that the more responsible leadership in Solidarity did not prevail at all times.
The TUC has called for the release of all the people who have been detained. The manner in which a number of people have been arrested and held reminds me of the worst kind of Right-wing dictatorship. There can be no credibility for the Polish regime, the junta that is ruling at the moment, until it releases those who have been detained, and until it ends martial law and accepts what it stated 10 days ago, that Solidarity is here to stay. We expect the people now in positions of leadership in Poland to act on those words. This explains why the TUC has expressed so strongly its demand for the release of those who have been held over the last seven to 10 days.
Poland has a long history of anti-semitism. Hon. Members know what happened in Poland before the


Second World War. Polish society, to a large extent, was diseased by anti-semitism. It is an unfortunate fact that there was seen again in 1968 a large amount of antisemitism in Polish society. How many people of Jewish origin were hounded only for the reason that they belonged to the that race? It is rather disturbing—I agree with the Lord Privy Seal, who mentioned this matter—that, to try to attract some popular support in Poland, the junta seems to be relying on the old Polish weapon of anti-semitism. I do not believe that it will succeed this time.
One wonders at times whether the Soviet leadership does not understand and appreciate that in countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia, although the situation may be different in countries like Hungary, the ruling parties are completely alienated from the population. In any meaningful genuine election it would be difficult, I imagine, for the Communist party in Poland, even before the events of the last 10 days, or in Czecholslovakia to receive more than 5 per cent. of the votes. Even that is perhaps a generous estimate.
Would it not be more sensible for the Soviet leadership—this will not happen today or tomorrow—to consider new arrangements for those countries? They would not be part of any Western alliance. They would be neutral. The State ownership that has emerged in the last 35 years would not be reversed. If, however, arrangements were made similar to those established between the Soviet Union and Finland in 1944 and 1945, this would not merely be better for the people living in Poland and Czechoslovakia, who would have Governments more acceptable to them, but would mean that the Soviet Union was not the subject of so much hate and dislike. In countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia people say, understandably, that they cannot get a more popular Government because of the Soviet Union. These are wider questions, but I believe that they are relevant to consider in order to avoid the bloodshed and tragedy that is taking place in Poland today.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: The House debates tonight, unfortunately briefly, a national tragedy that has incalculable possibilities. It is a pleasure for once to move from the parochial trivialities that characterise most of the preoccupations of the House into the infinitely more important realms of issues of liberty and tyranny, courage and cruelty, humanity and inhumanity and peace and war. For a brief moment hon. Members confront the harsh realities of the world we inhabit and the privations and agonies of our fellow citizens of Europe.
For 20 years I have seen Poland and my Polish friends pass through a series of upheavals, disappointments, hopes and false dawns—a brave and fine people kicking out furiously but intermittently against a series of regimes that promised much but which invariably turned out to be inept inheritors of the narrow and ruthless creed that has dominated their country since 1945.
But no uprising in Poland or elsewhere in Eastern Europe has been more devastating or as complete as that of Solidarity whose purpose is not simply that of trade union reform and better living standards. It has developed into a genuine national liberation movement in which sectors of Polish society normally antipathetic to each

other have willingly joined forces. It was this combination that made it, and makes it still, so potent, so novel and so significant.
We should have no illusions. The events of the past 10 days represent a genuine intervention by the Soviet Union. Only the most naive can continue to regard it as an internal Polish affair. If the question is asked about what we can do, it is at least a considerable improvement upon the dreary and defeatest lament that we can do nothing.
As I said in the House last week, there was a case for strong official economic aid from the West to Poland before the military coup. There is no justification for it now. If such aid is needed, it must be dependent upon certain conditions. Private aid through established charities, as the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said, is different. However, I am doubtful whether under the present circumstances much of that aid will reach its intended destination. But for Britain and its allies to give positive official aid and comfort to the present regime in Poland would be an act of betrayal not only of the Polish people but of the principles of British democracy and of our history.
The House may recall some lines written by an English poet in the summer of 1940, when she spoke of how
Europe clanged shut, like a prison door, And men who loved us not yet looked to us for liberty".
In the five years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have become increasingly oppressed by our concentration upon the local, the immediate and the trivial. When from time to time we debate the crucial issues that confront mankind, those debates are usually brief and perfunctorily attended. We have become the House of the rate support grant, of London Transport and of bypasses. While we endlessly haggle and chatter about those topics, the shadows of the real world are gathering with terrifying possibilities and menacing perils. The glimmer of the light of freedom in Poland has been extinguished, at least for the present. But Poland's agony is ours as well and must arouse uncomfortable questions about how deep our rhetoric of freedom goes and how solid is our commitment to the precious liberties for which we are supposed to stand.
These are sombre notes on which to approach the end of 1981. The future for the Polish people is bleak. Prospects for improved East-West relations and for serious negotiations on arms reduction have suffered a serious setback. There are few signs of light in the encircling gloom, but the problems will not disappear simply because the House of Commons prefers to exhaust itself on banalities. Although it is doubtful whether our message will reach the Polish people today, we should at least try. I commend to them and to the House the words from the penultimate speech from the Dispatch Box of Sir Winston Churchill. He said:
The day may dawn when fair play, love for one's fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair."—[Official Report, 1 March 1955; Vol. 537, c. 1905.]

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything in the Standing Orders or the conventions of the House to assist hon. Members so that they do not have to endure two sets of Front Bench speeches in such a short debate? Is it not outrageous that, having wasted three hours on a


phoney debate about London, we are now faced with the position that Members who have sat here throughout the debate are unable to make a contribution? In a short and important debate, should not the Front Benches forgo the opportunity to speak so that the voices of Back Benchers may be heard?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the convention of the House to call Front Bench speakers when they rise to speak.

Mr. Amery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is open to hon. Members to oppose the Adjournment of the House, but rather than do that, as many hon. Members still wish to speak, could there not be a consensus between the two Front Benches to prolong the debate for, say, an hour? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will not discuss that now.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I have already decided to cut my speech a great deal.
The debate has been not only serious and sombre, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that it would be. The whole House will agree that the Polish situation is tragic and dangerous. It is important for the House to make its views known and also make it clear that we shall intelligently do everything that we can positively to help the Polish people. Those who believe in democracy and freedom must declare their support for Solidarity and by diplomatic and other means put pressure on the Polish authorities to change direction.
With the growth of Solidarity we saw a new type of free and independent trade union movement develop in Poland. As was rightly said, it was unique in the Eastern European bloc. The last independent trade unions in the Eastern European bloc went out just after the Russian revolution. We must declare our support for Solidarity.
The Gdansk agreement of 31 August 1980 began by stating:
The performance of trade unions in the Polish People's Republic does not fulfil the hopes and expectations of employees. It is considered expedient to establish new self-governing trade unions that would genuinely represent the working class.
In a country with a Communist Party in control, supposedly representing the working class, it is admitted that neither the party nor the trade unions represent working people.
The agreement is a tremendous and historic document. As a result of it, freedom in Poland edged its way forward, with the bureaucratic society in Poland and in every other Communist-controlled country in Eastern Europe beginning to be undermined. The rulers of those countries have power and privileges and were not prepared enthusiastically to accept a new free trade union movement, so it was clear that sooner or later they would take action against the free trade unions in Poland because of the threat that they represented to their privileges and power.
Most of us feared that the action against Solidarity would come through direct military intervention from the Soviet Union, as happened in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. It did not happen like that, but it would be foolish for any of us not to recognise the hand of Moscow here. It is clear that the Polish generals could not have acted as they did had they not had the approval of the Soviet Government and the Soviet military.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heifer: No, I am sorry. I have only a few minutes in which to make my comments, and I want to give the Minister of State as much time as possible to reply to the debate.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, what we are witnessing in Poland is something unique, in the sense that we are seeing the demise of civilian party control and the development of military control. I agree that the old men of the Kremlin must be wondering what next. Not only the old men of the Kremlin must be wondering that. All bureaucratic Communist leaders in all parts of the world must be wondering what next, because of the military takeover.
As the Opposition and as the Labour Party, we believe that on issues such as human rights, trade union rights, freedom to publish and express one's opinion, the right of people to organise politically and to create political parties in a pluralist society and government by consent and democratic elections, there cannot be any double standards. That is why we are opposed to military or non-democratic Governments.
I say to those hon. Members who attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, (Mr. Winnick) that, whether it is Poland, Chile, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Italy in the past, South Africa or any country in the world where there is a non-democratic Government and no real freedom of expression, we as democratic socialists take our stand against such regimes. We do not believe in double standards. Therefore, we call upon the Polish authorities, first to lift the ban on meetings and trade union activity and to rescind the state of emergency; secondly, to release all those who have been detained under the emergency powers; and thirdly, swiftly to return to civilian rule.
I shall not argue about unilateral or multilateral disarmament this evening. What is at stake is peace and detente in Europe—and that means in the world. If the Soviet Union intervenes, there is no question but that world peace is put in the balance. Surely every hon. Member must make it clear that we cannot accept that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said that there were people in Solidarity who went too far. In that sense, he is echoing the words of The Times on 16 December. Its editorial stated:
The radicals in Solidarity overplayed their hand".
Such arguments ignore the reality of what is happening in Poland. There is there an attempt to crush an entire labour movement, involving millions of working people. There must be an alternative to that. The actions or words of a few radicals within the labour movement in Poland can never be used to justify attempts to crush the entire movement.
The Polish Communist Party has had the option of fully implementing the Gdansk agreement and giving the Polish people a real stake in power. By rejecting that course, the leaders of the Communist Party created the radical mood inside Solidarity, and it forced Solidarity to become political. I do not agree with my friend Arthur Scarg who says "It got beyond a union; they became political". If people have no freedom, what is it expected that they will become but political? For me, politics means that anyone who wants to form a political organisation or trade union organisation to advance freedom has the right to do so.
Lastly, are the Government prepared to accede to the Austrian request that Britain takes its fair share of refugees? What will be done in that direction?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Without a shadow of doubt this has been a very moving debate, albeit a shortened debate, much to the regret of not only myself but many of my hon. Friends; but that was the decision of the House earlier today.
This is a matter of the greatest importance not only to the Poles but to ourselves in Britain and to the world. It is time, and it is right, that the voice of the British House of Commons should be heard on this crucial issue that faces the world.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That voice has not been heard.

Mr. Luce: All of us watch and share, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said in his moving speech, the agony of the Polish people. That agony is not only real but symbolic, because it bears witness to the continuing struggle of those who aspire to individual liberty. It is a struggle that is constantly carried on against the forces that wish to impose collective State repression. That again is something that affects not just one country but all the countries of the world.
We all heard the extremely impressive speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about some aspects of the history of Poland. We know that the Poles are prisoners of their geography and their history. We know of their struggle for independence and for national identity. We know of their constant desire to assume or reassume a democratic way of life, which they started in the fourteenth century. Yet always, because of their geography, they have been prisoners of their surrounding nations: in the eighteenth century it was Austria, Prussia and Russia; in the nineteenth century we saw the Soviet Union dominate Poland throughout that century, and this century we see a repeat performance.
I believe that amongst the Poles in the last century the cry was "The Cossacks are coming". The great fear in their hearts was that they were about to be repressed yet again. The kind of fear exists again today.
We know of the distinctive strength of the Church of that country. When I went there as a student, on Sundays I saw every church full of people, and people outside who wished to attend the services. We know of that distinctive feature of the Polish people.
The debate has focused on how we can help the people of Poland without creating—because this seems to be their dilemma—greater prospects of bloodshed and violence, and even war. Three main points seem to emerge from the debate.
First, there is the question of food aid, a matter that was raised by the right hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), by the hon. Members for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) and for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), among others. Acute anxiety was expressed that we should continue to

provide food aid but only if it were distributed to the people and not seen as supporting the Government of Poland.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said, that is our policy, and it is a matter that we are discussing within the European Community. That is something that interests the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, who attaches great importance to the work being undertaken in Brussels today and tomorrow. We are studying how we can achieve the objective of getting food to the people of Poland, which is the major desire of the House.
The second main point of interest that emerged was the question of detainees and of individual liberty. My right hon. Friends the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it plain to the Polish Government that, if they persist in leading their nation further down the path of oppression, normal relations with them will not be possible. That applies whether we are talking about the problems of detainees—which was raised so expressively and forcefully by hon. Members today—or about other issues that will come before us in 1982. When questions of economic assistance are raised, those matters must come within the criteria that I have set out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) raised the question of economic assistance and said that it must be dependent upon a return to normality. This is a factor that we have to take into account when the Western nations are working out their common action.

Sir Bernard Braine: There must be no deportation.

Mr. Luce: I should like to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am anxious to try to answer all the points in a short time.
It is critical that the United Kingdom and the rest of the world should proclaim their support for the aspirations of the Polish people. That is one of the reasons why we shall increase the hours of broadcasting to the Polish people from tomorrow morning, as announced earlier by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. We must do all that we can to help the Polish people achieve their objectives peacefully and through what they describe as the process of renewal. That means that Solidarity and the Church, as well as the Government, have to work together. To this end it is essential to minimise the prospects of direct foreign intervention, because the consequences for us and for relations between East and West will be profound and grave.
Another matter—it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—is the importance of a co-ordinated Western approach to the problems of Poland and the Eastern bloc as a whole. That is why it is right that we should concentrate our attention upon co-ordination of discussion within NATO and with the European Community and other countries.
Many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) spoke of the post-war Soviet satellite system of which Poland is a part. They demonstrated the view of the House when they talked of the moral, spiritual and economic bankruptcy of the system.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — Rail Electrification Programme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to British Rail's electrification programme. I am obliged to the Minister for making his second appearance at the Dispatch Box this evening.
The case for electrifying——

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you explain to the House what is happening? I heard you put the Question on the Adjournment of the House, to which hon. Members said "No." Do I take it that the House does not adjourn when it says that it will not adjourn?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I can explain the position to the House. I called the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) to speak to his Adjournment debate because it was after 10 o' clock.

Mr. Cook: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the railway industry will greatly appreciate the interest shown by the many hon. Members in the Chamber.
The case for electrifying the railways is well known. It should certainly be well known to the Under-Secretary of State, because his Department participated with British Rail in a joint review of an electrification programme which came out earlier this year. As the Minister will be aware—and as the rest of the House will no doubt appreciate—that joint review came to the conclusion that electrification was a sound investment that would provide, in the view of the working party, a real rate of return of 11 per cent.
It would be a brave man who argued that the majority of the investment——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to carry on conversations please leave the Chamber?

Mr. Cook: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that hon. Members will stay for what I hope will be a matter of recognisable importance. It is a matter of regret that those who were apparently anxious to have a Division at the end of the last debate have already left the Chamber and that the SDP Benches are characteristically empty as we turn to a matter of critical importance to our transport system and to investment in our economic infrastructure.
The joint review concluded that electrification was a sound investment. It offered real gains in efficiency and productivity, because electrification would allow a reduction in manning per traffic volume and a reduction in locomotive power.
Electric traction would permit British Rail to run trains faster, and they would be capable of carrying heavier loads. They would be more reliable and would be pulled by locomotives that would spend less time undergoing maintenance and repair. Indeed, the maintenance cost of electrically-driven locomotives would be about one-third of the maintenance cost of the diesel units which provide the mainstay of the traction power of British Rail.
In short, electrification would offer Britain a more efficient railway industry and a more attractive transport


system to the passenger, but beyond the railway industry and the railway network wider benefits flow from electrification.
Electrification would provide us with a railway system that was more flexible in its use of energy; it would allow us to substitute electricity for oil; it would provide us with a more energy-efficient industry; and it would utilise the record surplus capacity within our generating system which is marked for decision by the generating board following the early retiral of its plant.
Electrification would provide a stimulus to the economy which would be felt in many industries which have undergone the severe effects of the recession—particularly the electric power supply industry and the civil engineering industry.
An electrification programme would give the British railway industry a serious chance to compete for the large foreign market that exists in the electrification of railways. On this matter I can do no better than quote a statement made by Mr. Cliff Moss of Balfour Beatty when the Government refused to give an urgent decision on the electrification of the Hitchin to Huntingdon line. According to The Daily Telegraph, he said:
Without a firm home base, the company's chances of getting major work abroad—and there are estimates that contracts worth £750 million are available worldwide in the next five years as most railways are modernised—would be drastically reduced.
The reason is obvious. If we are not prepared to invest in electrification in our home base, it will be very difficult to persuade foreign Government that we are sufficiently confident in our suppliers and manufacturers of electrificiation equipment for them to purchase such equipment from us.
The joint review reported in February 1981. However, it was not until June 1981 that we received a response from the Government. That response was not a decision but a series of further questions. The Government put up more hoops through which they expected British Rail to jump before it could gain approval for the electrification programme. It is curious that the Department of Transport, having been party for two years to an examination of the case for electrification, should suddenly find a whole new series of fundamental questions to ask. if the questions were relevant, the time to pose them was during the period of the joint review. The Minister will be aware—although he cannot admit it—why those questions arose at a later stage, after the task of the working party had been completed. Despite protracted examination of the case for electrification, the case was torpedoed at a late stage in a small street off Whitehall. It was taken apart by a lobbyist, who turned out to be more powerful than the Secretary of State, although he is not a member of the Government or an elected Member of Parliament.
I take issue with one of the questions that has been posed to British Rail. Indeed, British Rail has been asked to jump through this hoop before further approval for electrification is granted. I refer to the request for a statement on route profitablility before any approval is given to a rolling electrification programme. That request for an assessment of route profitablility is a logical absurdity. The Minister will be well aware of the difficulty of isolating a particular line and of the problems of trying to consider that line in isolation from the lines that feed it and into which it, in turn, feeds.
If British Rail is asked to judge and assess the benefits of investing in one line, in isolation from investment in other lines that feed that line and into which it, in turn, feeds, those difficulties will be compounded. The benefits of electrification will be greatest when electrification has spread widely across the network and when the initial cost of acquiring electric locomotives and traction equipment have been spread across investment in the network as a whole.

Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend's interesting speech. Perhaps he will ask the Minister to comment on the fact that the basis for profitability that my hon. Friend has outlined is applied to the road network. For example, the Government have decided to build the M40, but that is not considered section by section, in isolation, as British Rail's electrification proposals are.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation, which buttresses my general case. It is particularly relevant, because we have learnt that the £109 million that the EEC has refunded to Britain is to be spent by the Department on the trunk road programme. Indeed, £109 million is almost three times the amount sought from the joint review for investment in a rolling electrification programme. It is sad that sums of that size can be found for investment in a trunk road programme that does not have to pass the rigorous tests applied to the electrification programme when much more modest sums cannot be found for the electrification of our railways.
My case is that the test of route profitability is a logical absurdity, but whether logical or illogical it is irrelevant to an assessment of whether electrification is desirable. The test that was applied in the joint review was whether electrification would provide a real rate of return. On some of the lines that might be judged as less profitable in a test of route profitability the rate of return might be higher than for those lines that might pass the test. On the lines that are currently unprofitable, there is probably decayed, dilapidated equipment and an urgent need for further investment.
What is the point of the questions? The Secretary of State has given assurances that he is committed to preserving the present scale of the network. Presumably it is not his intention to close the lines that fail the test of route profitability. But if the lines are to remain open, some means must be provided to pull the trains that run on them. If electrification is ruled out, traction power will have to be provided by diesel-powered locomotives. Therefore, we are reduced to the absurdity that, because those lines are judged to be not profitable, British Rail might be obliged to invest in the less efficient method of traction power.
With respect to the other hoops that were announced in June, British Rail must be congratulated on the agility with which it has tried to jump through them. I understand that within the next month the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend will receive the prospectuses of British Rail for inter-city routes and the freight section. By the spring, they may expect to receive the different assessments of the 20 segments that make up the electrification programme.
If the Minister wishes to be punctilious, he can tell the House that as yet he has received no submission from British Rail, which is technically true. But, as he knows, his officials have been working closely with British Rail


in elaborating its response to the questions. If he is interested in what is happening, his officials will be happy to brief him on their discussions with British Rail. I am sure that they will also be happy to make it clear to him that there have been substantial improvements in productivity in British Rail during the past 18 months. Since April 1980, 12,000 posts have been shed by British Rail with the co-operation of the trade unions. That puts British Rail bang on target for the shedding of 38,000 posts by 1985. The Minister is aware that the shedding of posts in the collection and delivery of parcels was so efficiently carried out that it was achieved at less cost than was originally estimated by British Rail. I am happy to tell the Minister that only this evening the NUR executive approved a decision to go ahead with variable rostering hours and reached an agreement with British Rail.
The railway community has delivered its side of the bargain. The Minister should be under no illusion that it will be possible to maintain that momentum if the Government do not honour their side of the bargain by investing in the future of the industry and allowing British Rail to go ahead with the essential modernisation programme of electrification.
I wish to raise three specific points, which I hope the Minister will answer. First, can he say that a decision will be announced in the near future, if not tonight, on the Anglia proposal that he received from British Rail in November last year? That proposal was not part of the electrification programme considered for the joint review, but a commitment that that line will go ahead will be, at least, an earnest of good intent by the Government.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will assure us that when he receives the responses from British Rail to the test that he set in June this year there will be a swift decision on the submissions. Can he assure us that there will not be a further series of questions and hoops set up for British Rail to jump through to delay the decision for another year? Will he confirm that it is not the Government's intention to shunt off electrification to be considered as part of what is optimistically known as the brisk review of British Rail?
In short, will the Minister assure us that this time he will not allow the strategic decision to be mugged in a Cabinet sub-committee on the basis of papers from seconded academics seeking to cause mischief, and that the Department of Transport will fight its corner to ensure that the decision which it knows to be the right one in the interests of the transport industry will be taken?
Thirdly, will the Minister tell the House how the Department of Transport proposes to respond to the crisis which has now arisen as a result of the work of the design team reaching the point of exhaustion? The Minister will be aware that the Balfour Beatty team has completed all the design work associated with the Bedford to St. Pancras line. It has been retained for the present for Balfour Beatty, but Balfour Beatty will not indefinitely retain that team when there is no immediate prospect of work for it. If that team is not to be broken up, a rapid decision is required to provide security for that team, which is the sole team with specialised skills to carry out electrification.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to the proposals which have been before him for a month to enable work to start on a modest section of track from Hitchin to Huntingdon, which would at least

have the advantage of holding together that unique team of specialised skills until a decision is reached on the major electrification programme.
The advantages of electrification are widely perceived in other countries. There are now 16 other countries which have a higher proportion of their railway track electrified than Great Britain, although we were one of the first nations to have a railway network. One would expect France and Germany to be ahead of us in electrification. Perhaps the House would not expect Bulgaria and Poland to be ahead of us. It is a sad day when countries which started their railway industries well behind us now have more modern track systems than Britain.
I cannot believe that even the present Government are content with that position. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give an assurance that when they receive the submission from British Rail early next year they will seize the opportunity which they let slip through their fingers earlier this year when they received the report of their own joint review.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has used, as he usually does, a strong turn of phrase to advance his more compelling arguments. I hope to be able to persude him yet again that there is no real difference in principle between him and the Government.
The Government remain committed in principle to the concept of a 10-year programme for electrification. I do not wish to argue with the hon. Gentleman on the general merits of electrifying the railway system. The Government remain committed to the programme and will proceed with it when they are satisfied that it will be a worthwhile economic investment and a worthwhile use a public resources. We hope that by a process of co-operation and movement together by the Government, the railway management and the trade unions we shall progress towards electrification.
Perhaps I can best reassure the hon. Gentleman by dealing with his first specific question about Anglia electrification. We have had the application to electrify Anglia lines in the Department for a considerable time. The application reached the Department before it arrived at the decision-making stage on the main programme of electrifying the national network. My right hon. Friend has been anxious for some time to make a decision on the electrification of the Anglia lines. Impatience has been growing among passengers and in the railway community as they have awaited a decision.
It was not possible for my right hon. Friend to divorce the question whether to approve the Anglia electrification scheme from the deteriorating financial performance of the railways and the need to ensure that they make worthwhile progress in reducing costs and improving productivity. I am glad to say that British Rail has begun to make worthwhile advances on the productivity front. I congratulate both the management and the trade unions on what has been achieved. Indeed, they are slightly ahead of the timetable that they set at the time of the electrification statement.
Only today the National Union of Railwaymen confirmed an agreement with British Rail that it would move over to variable rostering, as agreed in reaching the pay agreement in the autumn. Clearly, that agreement on


variable rostering has no direct relationship with electrification, because it is a productivity deal linked to 3 per cent. extra on the pay which the NUR members hoped to achieve. Nevertheless, on hearing of the decision to accept variable rostering, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at last felt able to agree to give approval to the rail electrification to Norwich. This evening he announced his approval of major electrification to improve rail services to Ipswich, Norwich and Harwich.
The scheme, which will cost nearly £30 million, will enable through electric running between Liverpool Street, Ipswich, Norwich and Harwich. Journey times will be cut by nearly 20 per cent. between London and Ipswich, and it will no longer be necessary to change trains on the journey from London to Harwich. British Rail plans to rationalise the track and re-signal the line between Ipswich and Norwich before it gets on with the electrification work. It can now go forward with the schemes within its investment programme.
I trust that that announcement will eventually be to the benefit both of passengers and of railwaymen who work in that part of the country. It will be accepted in the terms that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central used, as an earnest of the Government's good intent and our intention to work alongside the railway industry and move together. As the industry moves on the productivity front and on improving the business performance, so the Government will move on their commitment to railway electrification.

Mr. Snape: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who spoke so ably earlier, will welcome the Minister's announcement of that electrification. Are the Government prepared to provide additional funds for such matters as re-signalling and track and bridge improvements which will be necessary before the electrification schemes?

Mr. Clarke: I think that British Rail contemplates being able to do that under its present investment ceiling. The next step will be to improve the signalling and the track in advance of starting electrification work, which will begin as soon as possible—a few years from now. I am not aware that British Rail faces difficulties. It welcomes the decision, and I think that it will be able to cope with the track and signalling improvements and then the electrification as soon as it can be achieved.
That scheme was on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) when he was Secretary of State for Transport before we reached decision time on the main electrification review and the proposals for electrification of a substantial network. We reached that decision with my right hon. Friend's statement on 22 June after we had considered the electrification review, a joint review between the Department and British Rail, which had been set up in 1978 and which reported last year. It demonstrated an internal rate of return which looked quite attractive for various networks of electrification schemes.
We welcomed that, but I emphasise that it was a review which was the background for the Government's policy, a policy that was arrived at on 22 June. I emphasise that because I want to answer some criticisms that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central hinted at, that somehow the Government had changed their position. It is not the case, as some people imply, that we first reached one

policy and then changed it, or that we keep putting up additional hoops for the Railways Board to go through, and keep asking more difficult questions. We had the electrification review coming to us. We received it and considered it, and made a statement on 22 June. We have not changed our policy in the slightest respect since 22 June.
The review certainly demonstrated a good internal rate of return, but on the face of it it made certain assumptions about the traffic and business performance of both inter-city and freight that unfortunately were then open to question. It was already clear by the time we received the review that unfortunately the inter-city and freight businesses of the railway were failing to meet the commercial remit set by the Government, which had recently been agreed. For those reasons, the economics had to be reviewed, and we felt when we made our statement on 22 June that it must be clearly spelt out that electrification was linked to improved business performance, profitable investment and improving productivity on the railways. The result was that we asked the board first to submit new plans for the commercial businesses of inter-city and freight to achieve a fully commercial performance by 1985, at the same time as we asked it to submit the 10-year programme of electrification. We also made clear that the progress on electrification would depend upon the achievement of the changes necessary to secure manpower reductions and improvements in productivity. We also set out in June that the approval of successive electrification projects would depend upon the achievement of these necessary improvements as well as the profitability of the investment in question.
The Government stand by all those statements. We have not changed any of them. At the time when that statement was made by my right hon. Friend, then Secretary of State for Transport, the chairman of the Railways Board, Sir Peter Parker, welcomed it as showing "a positive way ahead" for railway electrification, as it was intended to be by the Government.
Shortly after that statement, we explained to the board that the decisions meant that, in order to reach further decisions on electrification, we required from it a programme of schemes which were ranked in order of return. We also required a demonstration that the routes included in the programme were potentially profitable and an outline appraisal of each scheme, with an appraisal of the first in sufficient detail to enable us to reach a decision at the same time. We recognise the potential savings that would accrue from a programme of schemes, but separate appraisal of individual schemes is also needed to ensure that the programme offers the best possible financial return and that each scheme is fully justified.
The programme of schemes and the appraisal of individual schemes for which we asked would need to be based on the new plans for the inter-city and freight businesses which the board has been asked to submit. Those requirements were accepted by the board and there has been no subsequent change by the Government.
I shall not divert the debate and talk about the points made about the road programme by.the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and Edinburgh, Central. The Government attempt to submit roads to exactly the same rigorous economic examination. The M40 shows a worthwhile rate of return. Otherwise, the Government would not proceed with it. As I have said before, as the road and rail programmes are aimed at


different markets and carry very different levels of traffic, I have never understood why it is felt necessary by those who are interested in the rail industry to attack the road programme and by those who are interested in haulage to attack the railway industry. That is not a worth while way of pursuing an interest. I know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would like to reply, but if we start to debate that I shall not reach other matters which interest him.
I hope to explain what progress has been made since the statement, as there have been press reports of some rather silly disputes, apparent rather than real, between the Government and the board over the methodology and what has happened since. The new requirement contained in our statement was a method for assessing route profitability, but there was no difficulty in reaching early agreement on this and, shortly afterwards, agreement on the methodology for ranking and appraising schemes. The board has always acknowledged the consistently helpful attitude of the Department in developing this methodology.
Unfortunately, there has been delay. This is regretted by the board and by the Government, as well as by the railway unions and everyone else, including hon. Members interested in the railway industry. But the delay has not been caused by obstructionism or changes in the rules since June. It has been caused by the board's difficulty in reaching decisions on the financial prospects for the inter-city and freight businesses. The board has taken longer than it had hoped to settle the new commercial plans for those two businesses which are the essential basis of the 10-year programme.
Again, trying to strike a positive note today, I am glad to tell the House that we are making progress. We have now received the board's new policy for inter-city and this is undoubtedly a major step. We expect to receive the board's plan for freight very soon—by which I expect, and no doubt the board hopes, that it will be within the next few weeks.
These plans are the product of much careful thought about the future of the commercial rail businesses, and implementation of those plans will require many difficult decisions over the next few years. In the Government's

opinion, it is vital that those plans, now that they have been produced, should be followed by sustained action by the board towards the objectives that it has set for itself. For the moment, however, they are the essential basis for the board to evaluate the potential profitability of its main line routes, to begin drawing up the 10-year programme of schemes and to begin preparing a detailed investment submission for the first of the schemes.
The Department is ready to assist the board in every way possible. We look forward to receiving the 10-year programme as soon as possible and I assure the hon. Gentleman, in response to his third question, that we shall give it urgent consideration as soon as it becomes available.
I have left myself little time to deal with two final points. All of this is still linked to continuing productivity. We indicated a target in June based on the railways' own corporate plan of 38,000 fewer posts at the end of 1985. I have already acknowledged British Rail's success in moving towards that target slightly ahead of schedule.
We have considered the Hitchin-Huntingdon route, but it makes no sense except in the context of the King's Cross to Leeds route. For the same reasons as in the case of road programmes, no case can be made for the Hitchin to Huntingdon route. Huntingdon is a nice place, but it is not big enough to justify electric trains being extended to it. We shall look as soon as we can at the King's Cross to Leeds route if, in the board's judgment, it turns out to be the first scheme in the programme, with the highest priority, and the board can work it out and give us the necessary information.
I am aware of the problems of Balfour Beatty, but for short-term problems of that kind we cannot divorce ourselves from the main policy objectives that we set ourselves. We hope that if we can make progress with the business programmes and the 10-year programme., our policy and the needs of the country, Balfour Beatty and everyone else will match up. But that requires good progress on productivity and on these schemes coming along.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.